Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Pub Sophocles An Interpretation
Pub Sophocles An Interpretation
SOPHOCLES
AN INTERPRETATION
R. P. WINNINGTON-INGRAM
Formerly Professor of Greek Language and Literature in the
University of London (King's College)
| CAMBRIDGE
UNIVERSITY PRESS
Published by the Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge
The Pitt Building,Trumpington Street, Cambridge CB2 1RP
40 West 20th Street, New York, NY 10011-4211, USA
10 Stamford Road, Oakleigh, Melbourne 3166, Australia
Preface vii
Bibliography of short titles ix
1 Introductory I
2 The mind of Ajax n
3 The burial of Ajax 57
4 Trachiniae 73
5 Sophocles and the irrational:
three odes in Antigone 91
6 Creon and Antigone 117
7 Fate in Sophocles 150
8 The fall of Oedipus 179
9 Furies in Sophocles 205
10 Electra 217
11 Oedipus at Colonus 248
12 Philoctetes 280
13 Heroes and gods 304
Appendices
A The Parodos of Trachiniae 330
B Trachiniae 248ft. 332
C Prometheus Vinctus 511-20 334
D The Parodos of Electra 335
E Locality in Oedipus Coloneus 339
F Philoctetes 419ff. 3 40
G The chronology of the plays 341
Linforth. Among living scholars, I owe more to Kitto and Knox than
may always appear: to Kitto for that sense of form which is as essential
to the critic of Greek poetry as it is to the musician, to both for the
dispersal of much cant and cliche.
On all seven plays I lectured at one or other of the three London
colleges in which I have taught: Birkbeck, Westfield, and King's.
This book is a direct product of those lectures. If I indulged myself
by exploring the plays in greater detail than the circumstances
demanded, the patience of my undergraduate audiences was exem-
plary. A graduate seminar in the University of Texas at Austin caused
me to rewrite an earlier draft on Ajax; and this I did in the congenial
environment of the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton, to
which I offer my warmest thanks. I am grateful to friends for criticism
and encouragement: to Professor Thomas Gould and Professor A. A.
Long who, respectively, read and commented upon earlier drafts of
Chapters 10 and 7; above all, to Mrs P. E. Easterling who saw every
chapter in draft and had the great kindness to read the proofs. Along
with my gratitude, I absolve them from all responsibility. To my
wife, who has endured some tedium, I owe, as so much else, my title.
Finally, it is no formality if I thank the staff of the Press for their skill
and consideration.
Letters: F.J. H. Letters, The life and work ofSophocles (London 1953)
Levy: C. S. Levy, 'Antigone's motives: a suggested interpretation', TAP A 94 (1963)
137-44
Linforth (1951): I. M. Linforth, 'Religion and drama in "Oedipus at Colonus" '.
U.Cal. Publ. in Class. Phil. 14 (1951) 75-191
Linforth (1951): I. M. Linforth,'The pyre on Mount Oeta in Sophocles' Trachiniae',
U. Cal. Publ. in Class. Phil. 14 (1951) 255-67
Linforth (1956): I. M. Linforth, 'Philoctetes: the play and the man', U. Cal. Publ. in
Class. Phil. 15 (1956) 95-156
Linforth (1961): L M. Linforth, 'Antigoneand Creon', U. Cal. Publ. in Class. Phil. 15
(1961) 183-259
Linforth (1963): I. M. Linforth, 'Electra's day in the tragedy of Sophocles', U. Cal.
Publ. in Class. Phil. 19 (1963) 89-126
Lloyd-Jones, JZ: H. Lloyd-Jones, The justice of Zeus (Berkeley & Los Angeles 1971)
Long: A. A. Long, Language and thought in Sophocles (London 1968)
Meautis: G. Meautis, Sophocle: essai sur le he'ros tragique (Neuchatel 1940, 2nd ed. Paris
1957)
Miiller (1): G. Miiller, 'Uberlegungen zum Chor der Antigone', Hermes 89 (1961)
398-422
Miiller (2): G. Miiller, Sophokles Antigone (Heidelberg 1967)
Miiller, OT: G. Miiller, 'DaszweiteStasimondesKonig Odipus', Hermes9$ (1967)
269-91
Musurillo: H. Musurillo, The light and the darkness (Leiden 1967)
O'Brien: M. J. O'Brien (ed.), Twentieth-century interpretations of Oedipus Rex
(Englewood Cliffs, N J . 1968)
Pearson: A. C. Pearson, Thefragments of Sophocles, 3 vols. (Cambridge 1917)
Perrotta: G. Perrotta, Sofocle (Milan 1935)
Podlecki, TAP A: A.J. Podlecki, 'Creon and Herodotus', TAP A 97 (1966) 359~7i
Poe: J. P. Poe, Heroism and divinejustice in Sophocles' Philoctetes (Mnem. Suppl. 34 -
Leiden 1974)
Pohlenz: M. Pohlenz, Diegriechische Tragodie (2nd ed. Gottingen 1954)
Reinhardt: K. Reinhardt, Sophokles (Frankfurt 1933, 3rd ed. 1947; Eng. transl.,
Oxford 1979)
Robinson: D. B. Robinson, 'Topics in Sophocles' Philoctetes1, CQ 19 (1969) 34-56
de Romilly: J. de Romilly, Time in Greek tragedy (Ithaca, N.Y. 1968)
de Romilly, CA: J. de Romilly, La crainte et I'angoisse dans le theatre d'Eschyle (Paris
1958)
Ronnet: G. Ronnet, Sophocle, poete tragique (Paris 1969)
Rose: P. W. Rose, 'Sophocles' Philoctetes and the teachings of the sophists', HSCP 80
(1976)49-105
Rosenmeyer, MT: T. G. Rosenmeyer, 'Ajax: tragedy and time', The masks of tragedy
(Berkeley 1961) 155-98
Rosenmeyer, Phoenix: T. G. Rosenmeyer, T h e wrath of Oedipus', Phoenix 6 (1952)
92-112
Seale: D. Seale, 'The element of surprise in Sophocles' Philoctetes\ BICS 19 (1972)
94-102
xii Bibliography of short titles
Introductory
1
On chronology see App. G below. The most serious doubts arise over the dating
of Trachiniae and Electra, but the former is likely to be relatively early and the
latter relatively late.
2
Dodds, GI49. On traditional modes of thought in Euripides, see Lloyd-Jones,JZ
Introductory 3
For the most part, however, the book consists of detailed studies of
the extant plays. Not all these studies are upon the same lines or upon
the same scale, but each of them seeks to relate interpretation closely
to the text. There is always a certain arrogance in supposing that one's
careful study of a text will reveal things which others have missed or
from which they have failed to draw the right conclusions. A scholar
has, however, no right to inflict his views upon the world, unless he
sincerely believes that he has something new to say; and he will be
rash to believe this unless his views are firmly based upon the words of
his author. Those words are the ultimate evidence. The more careful a
writer the poet the better the evidence; and there is reason to suppose
that Sophocles was a very careful and controlled writer who did not
use words at random, even small words in short speeches, while his
long speeches, even where they are most emotional, are dense with
thought and carefully structured. For, like the other tragedians, he
was working in a formal tradition which demanded the imposition of
a shape upon the subject-matter. Thus form too is a criterion: the
form of the play, the scene, the ode, the speech, the sentence. Why has
the poet shaped this or that element, large or small, in this particular
way? Why has he made his personages to say this and not that?
To say or to sing. The lyric features in Sophocles - odes and
kommoi7 - have not been neglected by scholars, their close relation-
ship to context has been observed and discussed. It may be, however,
that their structural and thematic importance has not always been
given its due weight. 8 To take a couple of examples: the Second
Stasimon of Oedipus Tyrannus is a notorious problem. Why, for
instance, is the Chorus made to raise the issue of tyranny? Is Oedipus,
or do they think him to be, a 'tyrant' or on the way to become one?
And is his destruction related to his 'tyranny'? If so how? And if not
what does this signify? The problem has been assailed from many
directions, some rather tangential to the main themes of the play. Yet
the ode is symmetrically constructed, dove-tailed into the structure,
packed with traditional religion and morality. Placed centrally and at
names (cf. O.C. 42f.), and, since their nature is discussed at length, there should be
no danger of misconstruction.
7
For convenience I have, like others, used this term to cover all lyric features in
which the Chorus is joined by one or more singing actors, though it should
properly refer only to laments (cf. Arist. Poet. I452b24).
8
Lloyd-Jones, JZ115, speaks of'the too prevalent habit of treating the choral lyrics
as an unimportant element in Sophoclean drama*.
Introductory 5
dramatists to depict character as such and that any failure on their part
to provide fully fleshed 'characters' recognizable by the standards of
ordinary life was a deficiency which should not be imputed to them
until every effort had been made on their behalf. Reactions tend to
run to extremes: hence those denials that fifth-century Greeks pos-
sessed a concept of the unitary personality at all or, alternatively, that
the tragedians cared to preserve even a semblance of consistency in
their portrayal of personality.12 On the whole, the more sensible
critics today recognize that there is a core of unity and consistency in
the characters of Greek tragedy and that, in this form of drama at any
rate, our responses depend upon a feeling that these are human-beings
not altogether unlike ourselves whose emotions follow paths which
are not beyond our comprehension.13
This takes us some way, but not very far. In the case of Aeschylus
perhaps we do not go much farther than to say that he has provided
that minimal degree of character and motivation which is required in
order to account for the action. How far do we go with Sophocles?
12
Cf. Tycho Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Die dramatische Technik des Sophokles
(Berlin 1917). For a sympathetic, if critical, account of this work see H. Lloyd-
Jones, CQ 22 (1972) 214-28. For a representative - and highly intelligent - post-
Wilamowitz reaction see Schadewaldt 6iff., esp. 63-9.
13
Characterization in Greek tragedy might be easier to discuss, if there were any
clear understanding of the means by which dramatists cause a character to 'live'
upon the stage. Serious and effective drama can be written with characters
ranging from mere abstractions to highly complex and 'life-like' individuals. The
extent, however, to which the personage is imposed upon the audience seems not
to vary directly with the complexity of his characterization. Bringing a character
to 'life' may be a trade-secret not divulged, but may have something to do with
giving him a characteristic 'tone of voice' (a notion I believe to be derived from
Stoll, the Shakespearian scholar). Aeschylus' Clytemnestra is a good example. She
is not built up with an accumulation of traits; her characterization is little more
than an unfolding of the implications of the first statement made about her in the
play: 'the woman's heart of manly counsel' exercising 'mastery'. And yet, when
we hear her say: eanv BdXaaaa' TIS 84 viv Karaofiioti.;, we feel that no one but
Clytemnestra could have spoken those words. Clytemnestra is the supreme
achievement of Aeschylus in that line, but Eteocles in Septem (nine years earlier),
simpler in conception, closer to being defined by status (son and king), yet
imposes himself in an impressive way from the beginning, so that we accept him
as a person, we believe in him during the traffic of the stage.
Characterization in Aeschylus is too big a matter to be dealt with £K napepyov.
Cf. P. E. Easterling, 'Presentation of character in Aeschylus', G&R 20 (1973) 3-19,
and some sensible remarks by K. J. Dover, JHS 93 (1973) 69. On characterization
in Greek tragedy in general, C. Garton, JHS 77 (1957) 247-54, is an outstandingly
valuable contribution.
8 Introductory
We must wait and see what we find, relying more upon texts than
upon dogmas. A recent writer has, however, presented us with a
useful way of looking at the problem. 14 Sophocles builds down and
he builds up; he builds down from the traditional situation and the
mental attitudes which the action implies, and he builds up from
observation of human life in such a way as to create credibility and
encourage emotional response. The building-down is not, however,
just a matter of exhibiting a unitary ethos (which has been a popular
way of looking at Sophoclean character). Ajax is proud, but virtually
all heroes are proud: Ajax has a special degree of pride, the quality and
causation of which are essential to the action. Nor is the process of
building-up a matter of introducing psychological peculiarities for
their own sake. 15 Indeed it is within that large area between 'unitary
ethos1 and psychological niceties that Sophoclean characterization lies.
We must take what we find. We should not wave our antennae, delve
into our egos, or read ingeniously between the lines: we should,
however, read the lines, and read them carefully. We should not be
frightened by a dogma into dismissing the natural interpretation of a
text.
Nor need we expect the observation of human nature to play the
same part in the portrayal of every character or in every kind of play.
When towards the end of his career, Sophocles decided to write a play
about Philoctetes left alone on a desert island and to introduce the
young Neoptolemus as the tool of Odysseus, he faced and met a
double challenge. He had, by an effort of sympathetic imagination, to
picture the mind of a heroic person in a situation which no normal
man encounters; he had to enter into the mind of an adolescent in a
situation which, despite the heroic setting, was not too remote from
common experience. In both areas he drew upon his knowledge of
human nature and human life; in both cases, character and action are
inextricably intertwined.
thought about men and the gods. For their destinies are in one way or
another god-given; and the world of Sophocles is, like that of
Aeschylus, inhabited and ordered by gods of power. When, how-
ever, we come to ask how the nature and fate of a Sophoclean hero are
related to the divine ordering of the world, the interpreters provide us
with a variety - even a confusion - of views. As one writer has well
put it: 16 'Answers range from the most pious justification of the ways
of God to a radically anti-religious hero-worship.'
Sophocles has been seen by some as the prophet of sophrosune,17
concerned to teach through his plays a lesson in modesty, the recogni-
tion of human status, the poverty of human power and knowledge;
his heroes suffer in order that this lesson may be taught and learnt, by
others if not by them. Now, if one thing is certain, one generalization
valid, it is that the Sophoclean hero is not himself sophron in any
ordinary sense of the word. A man or woman of excess, an extremist,
obstinate, inaccessible to argument, he refuses to compromise with
the conditions of human life. 18 Be sophron and, in a tragedy of
Sophocles, you may hope to play Creon in the Tyrannus or at best
Odysseus in Ajax; your place in the chorus is assured; you can be
Ismene but not Antigone, Chrysothemis but not Electra, Deianira but
only if, at the fatal moment, relaxing your sophrosune, you abandon
the 'salutary state of mind' that keeps you safe. The greatness of these
figures is, surely, bound up with their failure to conform to conven-
tional standards of moderation. In what does their 'heroism' consist, if
not in their very extremism and refusal to compromise? In ordinary
life we seek, so far as lies in our power, to keep ourselves remote from
tragedy, but we also stay remote from greatness, aspiring to the
condition of a Creon and not an Oedipus. In Sophocles it often seems
as though greatness - at least this kind of greatness - attracts disaster
by a kind of natural law which may have little to do with justice as
16
H. Friis Johansen, in his indispensable survey, 'Sophocles 1939-1959', Lustrum
1962/7, 152.
17
The definition — not to say the translation — of sophronjsophroneinjsophrosune is
notoriously difficult, so wide is the semantic field. They can connote chastity or
common sense, be opposed to indiscipline, sheer madness or mere ill-judgement.
Sophrosune is moderation, self-control, prudence, sanity, good sense, mental
balance. The first element in the compound (aw-) is often felt: such a state of
mind is both sound and salutary. The theme is carefully examined by Helen
North in her Sophrosyne: self-knowledge and self-restraint in Greek literature (Ithaca,
N.Y., 1966).
18
Cf. Knox, HT passim.
io Introductory
justice is commonly understood. We ask if the gods are just and, if so,
what kind of justice they administer.
Tragedy is disquieting. Terrible things happen: they are terrible in
themselves, and they happen to people with whom our emotions,
though not necessarily without ambivalence, have been engaged by
the dramatist. It is natural to seek comfort somewhere. 19 But where,
in Sophocles, do we look? We can look to the heroes; and this raises
the first of two primary and interrelated issues, which is the nature of
heroism and its place in the world. No one can deny their greatness.
Do we say, then, that they are supremely admirable, destroyed in a
world which does not deserve them? That they show their greatness
above all in the moment of defeat? There is no theme, perhaps, in
literary criticism which involves a greater temptation towards senti-
mentality. The heroes are prepared to sacrifice everything, even life,
to their principles, to the maintenance of their standards. It is, then,
essential to enquire what, precisely, those principles and standards are;
and much of the examination which follows is concerned with just
that question. Whatever they may be, they lead to tragedy.
There is a second issue: there are the gods. They are powerful and
rule us. Justly? Do we say that, despite appearances, they order
everything for the best? That they have some kind of good-will
towards men from which we can draw comfort? Or was Hyllus right
to speak of unfeeling gods? 20 For what principles and standards do
they stand? Could there be a dreadful kinship between heroes and
gods, jointly productive of tragedy?
Finally, there is pity. If Hyllus arraigned the gods as pitiless, he
claimed pity - sympathy - from his companions. If the theatre of
Sophocles is full of suffering, it is full of pity, but it is not the pity of
the gods. There is the pity of those characters who are capable of it;
and there is the poet's own pity which is dominant and all-embracing.
One is led to ask what the status of pity may be in a tragic world. We
will return to these questions when the individual plays have been
examined.
19
Why we derive pleasure from the presentation on the stage of such terrible
happenings has never, to my knowledge, been satisfactorily explained, certainly
not by Aristotle with his ingenious doctrine of katharsis.
20
Track. I264ff, on which see pp. 73f. below.
CHAPTER TWO
After the death of Achilles his arms were awarded not to Ajax, who
thought them his due, but to Odysseus. Ajax nursed his injured pride
and then went out by night to avenge himself upon Odysseus and the
Atridae and all the Greeks who had insulted him. But Athena, the
patron of Odysseus, sent a mad delusion upon him so that he wreaked
his vengeance upon flocks and herds, taking animals for men. Some
he killed, but the ram he thought to be Odysseus was reserved for
torture. When he came to his senses and realized what he had done, he
saw nothing for it but to take his own life. The Atridae then forbade
him to be buried. Despite the protests of his brother Teucer, this
inhuman decree would have been carried out, if it had not been for
the generosity of Odysseus who secured his burial.
That, in broad outline, is the story told in the Ajax of Sophocles. It
has its revolting aspects and the main character is, on the bare facts as
stated, neither attractive nor laudable. If the grimness is offset by the
pathos of Tecmessa, by the loyalty of Teucer perhaps, and certainly
by the generosity of Odysseus, Ajax, on the other hand, seems to earn
his disastrous fate by his own conduct. Towards the gods he is
arrogant; towards men he is treacherous and cruel, going out by night
to attack and kill the Greeks, torturing a ram in the belief that it was
Odysseus. Yet the interpretation of the play and of its central figure is
vexed. And one could wonder at first why this should be, and why
the play should not be taken as a simple story of hubris punished.
It is in fact easy, if inadequate, to interpret Ajax on these lines,
following a critical method which, so far as it goes, is unexception-
able. One observes the form of the play, the careful balance of
opening and close, the role of Odysseus. The play opens with him: he
is invited by the goddess Athena to gloat over his deluded enemy but
II
12 The mind of Ajax
not the least, the source of the information conspire to play down the importance
of the crimes, for Calchas is not, in this play at any rate, an entirely reputable
informant/ Why ever not? Contr. Fraenkel, Sent. 8 (on 127).
5
The archaic ring-composition is carried still further: 756f. are balanced by 778f;
the first boast of Ajax is preceded by w/tiKOfinws (766) and followed
(770). See pp. 4of.
6
Cf. Lattimore, PGT 80.
7
See pp. 8ff. above.
14 The mind of Ajax
song which said that Ajax was the best of the Greeks that came to
Troy after Achilles (JJLCT* ^xtAAca).* 2 This is the tenour of the Iliad and
of the whole post-Homeric tradition; and it is what Odysseus says
towards the end of the play (1341). Ajax fails to make the exception.
A small point it might seem, but it is only one of several instances
which could be quoted of a megalomaniac pride. 13
If critics can play down the arrogance and impiety of Ajax, they
can play up his sense of grievance - not its importance in the
motivation of Ajax, which cannot be over-stressed, but its extenuat-
ing value. We are, one hopes, long past the day when figures in Greek
tragedy were judged by Christian or even by^Platonic standards. We
are right to see Ajax against the background of a morality established
in the heroic age and surviving tenaciously in the popular standards of
the fifth century. For Greeks did not cease to be preoccupied with
personal prestige because city-states had come into being. We know
that they were - and continued to be - emulous and proud and
preoccupied with their honour. Still, the ideal conditions for the
operation of a code of heroic self-sufficiency, if they had ever existed,
had passed away by the later fifth century. Knox writes as follows: 14
'Ajax is presented to us in this play as the last of the heroes. His death is
the death of the old Homeric (and especially Achillean) individual
ethos which had for centuries of aristocratic rule served as the
dominant ideal of man's nobility and action, but which by the fifth
century had been successfully challenged and largely superseded.'
This is a not unrewarding line of interpretation, and we shall return to
it. Certainly Ajax is presented to us throughout in terms of the heroic
morality; and Knox goes on to say that 'this is the function of the
wealth of Homeric reminiscence which editors have noted in the
language of the play'. The Homeric echoes are certain, though not of
course surprising in view of the subject-matter. It may, however, be
doubted whether the relationship of the Sophoclean Ajax to Homer is
quite so straightforward as Knox's words might suggest.
12
Scolia anonyma 15 Diehl=Page, PMG 898. Cf. C. M. Bowra, Greek lyric poetry2
(Oxford 1961) 379, who cites Iliad 2.768f. and Alcaeus fr. 387 LP (on which see
Page, Sappho and Alcaeus (Oxford 1955) 285).
13
But is it such a small point? C f S. N. La wall's brief but illuminating article
'Sophocles' Ajax: aristos . . . after Achilles', CJ 54 (1958/59) 29iff., and see n. 52
below.
14
Knox, HS2of
16 The mind of Ajax
One can well imagine that, when writing Ajax, Sophocles steeped
himself in those parts of the Iliad which dealt with the hero and there
are clear signs that he had done so. 1 5 He would remember — and could
count on his audience remembering - the silence of Ajax in the
Nekuia and his prayer to Zeus in Iliad 17, his speech to Achilles in Iliad
9, his preoccupation with aidos, his duel with Hector and the
exchange of gifts. In point of characterization, there were hints that
could be neglected, or taken up and developed. It is perhaps fair to say
there is little in the Sophoclean Ajax which is not present, in the germ,
in the Ajax of Homer. But in the development there is both similarity
and difference; and thfc difference may be more significant than the
similarity. The Sophoclean Ajax is a new creation, which we may
compare with Homer's, but more profitably perhaps with the total
picture of heroism and its attitudes which we gain from the epic.
Actually, the most striking Homeric reminiscence is of a passage in
Homer that does not deal with Ajax. In writing the scene between
Ajax and Tecmessa Sophocles reminds his audience in the most
deliberate and specific way of the farewell between Hector and
Andromache in Iliad 6. 1 6 There is a threefold echo, (i) At soiff.
Tecmessa imagines the scornful words which will be spoken of the
fallen hero's concubine. In Iliad 6 it is Hector who puts words - words
of respect — into the mouths of enemies. Hector's heart is torn with
imaginative compassion; Ajax makes no response to the plea of
Tecmessa. (ii) In Iliad 6 Hector stretched out his arms for his son, but
Astyanax was frightened by the crested helmet. Father and mother
laugh, and Hector lays the helmet on the ground. Ajax (545ff.)
demands of his infant son that he show no fear of the slaughtered
animals, but be already schooled in the harsh ways of his father, (iii)
Both heroes wish for their sons: Hector that people may say 'He is a
far better man than his father', Ajax that his son may be more
fortunate than his father, but like him in all else 'and he would prove
no coward' (ssof). Lattimore comments that these echoes are just off
key and to the disadvantage of Ajax'. 17 Is this unfair?
15
This would account for the fact that several echoes of Homeric language come
from passages where Ajax is either speaking or present in the immediate context.
137: for irX-qyTf Aios Stanford cites //. 14.414 (of a thunderbolt, but in an
Ajax-passage) and 13.812 (where Ajax is speaking). 147: for aXSiovi aiSrjpip, cf.
among other passages, 4.485 (of a wainwright, but the passage is about Ajax).
242: for Xiyvpq. pdoriyi, cf. 11.532. See also n. 74.
16 17
See Perrotta 144-7. PGT68.
The mind of Ajax 17
The more closely one looks at the Sophoclean Ajax the more gaps
seem to open up between him and the typical Homeric hero. The
greatest gap is this, and it is revealed by Calchas. Ajax was confident
that he could win without the gods and spurned the help of Athena in
battle. Nothing could be less characteristically Homeric. 21 Divine
help was the way in which the hero accounted for his moments of
superior prowess, as for his sudden insights; and the poet dramatizes
this conviction in the form of actual appearances of gods. When
Achilles refrained from attacking Agamemnon, it was Athena that
checked him; and it was with the aid of Athena that he overcame
Hector. Ajax - and Ajax alone, the Sophoclean Ajax, feels that it
would derogate from his prestige to accept help from a god. 2 2
Ajax rejects - and we shall see it is not his only rejection - that sense
of dependence upon the gods by which the pride of a Homeric hero is
normally mitigated. So far, then, from lapsing into 'text-book'
theology, Sophocles may have given us, through the words of
C«*ichas, a significant clue to the nature of his hero and the under-
standing of the dramatic action. One might formulate as follows.
How did it come about that a great hero - a supreme embodiment
of arete - launched this outrageous attack upon his former friends?
The answer lies in injured pride, and the brooding over injured pride,
but it is not a complete answer. The answer lies, certainly, in the
heroic code of values, but also in a hero who carried this ideal - or an
aspect of this ideal - to a point so extreme that it falls, one might say,
outside the range of normal humanity. To say that he carried it to its
logical conclusion might imply that he acted rationally. It might also
imply that the code had itself a logic free from contradictions. It was
not, however, a logical construction, but rather a collection of emo-
tional attitudes and socially conditioned imperatives which might -
and did - conflict with one another. It was a hard code for men living
dangerously in competition, but it contained mitigations of its own
21
Cf. P. Chantraine, Fondation Hardt Entretiens i (Vandoeuvres-Geneve 1954)
48-50.
22
In the Iliad Ajax is never shown as aided specifically by any god: 'he never prays
for victory or thanks the gods when they voluntarily help him' (Stanford xxxix,
cf. Lattimore, SPGT 61 n.7, Kirkwood, HSA 6 if.). This may be one of the hints
that Sophocles has developed, though it should not be over-stressed. Oddly
enough, alone of Homeric heroes, it was the other Ajax who boasted, in a
context of shipwreck not war, that he needed no help from the gods, cf. Pohlenz,
(1st ed.), Erlauterungen 49; Dirlmeier 307.
The mind of Ajax 19
26
Though, oddly enough, iieya\ofi,avr)s occurs in the scholia to Ajax 143, in the
sense of 'greatly mad*.
27
T w o quotations will show the importance of clarifying these questions. 'V Aiace
e il dramma di Aiace savio, non dell' Aiace folle del prologo' (Perrotta 138). 'The
intervention of the goddess makes no difference; his attempt at wholesale murder
was not the act of a sane man* (L. Pearson, Popular ethics in ancient Greece
(Stanford, Cal. 1962) 192). Recently we have had a brief but valuable study by
Penelope Biggs, to which I shall refer. See also Simpson. Some of the evidence is
handled by Vandvik, who maintains that Ajax is quite literally insane through-
out the play and so not responsible for his actions. This hardly does justice to the
subtlety and insight with which Sophocles has developed the theme of mental
sickness.
28
At 5 if. I take rrjs dvrfKearov xapds after airttfryw. Cf. BICS 26 (1979) if., where I
also put forward a suggestion that 8vo<f>opos (there and at 643) may be an instance
of that medical language which is not infrequent in Sophocles. See Knox, OTh
I39ff., who gives Hippocratic references for Svofopos (n. 106 on p. 245) in
connection with O. T. 87.
29
Critics have made heavy weather of the *cowardice' of Odysseus, surely a very
natural human reaction to a madman.
The mind of Ajax 21
34
That they constitute a community prepares a theme which will be important: see
below.
35
The word fieyas occurs thirty-six times in the play - far more frequently than in
any other extant play of Sophocles, which is not surprising in view of the subject
and of the fact that this is a Homeric epithet for Ajax. But the occurrences are not
spread evenly through the play. The word occurs thirteen times between 139 and
241; nine times in the Parodos, seven of them in the anapaests, including four in 8
lines. There are careless (as well as designed) repetitions in all the plays (c£. L.
Massa Positano, L'unitd delV Aiace di Sofocle (Naples 1946) 140 n. 1), but not on
this scale; and this would seem to be an early example of a technique not
uncharacteristic of the poet. The word fieyas and the notion of greatness are
meant to sink into the minds of the audience. Cf. Stanford xxvii n. 37 (his count
is too small); Knox, HS 21; Davidson 175 n. 12.
36
The point is made by Stanford on 224-6.
37
167-70 ~~ I39f. (one of the numerous examples of ring-composition in this play).
38
The twofold yap (183,185) is explained by Kamerbeek, following Denniston 64
(6) (contr. Da we, STS 133); and, with Campbell, he rightly interprets the
potential force of TJKOI av-z hypothesis relating to the past, a possible explanation
of what has happened.
The mind of Ajax 23
once more they urge Ajax to arise and quench the hubris of his enemies
which is spreading like a forest-fire.
Their appeal is answered, not by the great, but by the weak - not
by Ajax, but by Tecmessa. Chorus and Tecmessa, each knows some-
thing which the other does not know, and, when their knowledge is
combined, it becomes terribly clear that Ajax had indeed attacked the
flocks. The audience knew this; what the audience did not know and
now learns from Tecmessa is that Ajax, who had been mad, is now
sane — or at least that is how Tecmessa sees it. This does not become
clear at once. 39 When the Chorus sing of their terror of involvement
(245ff.), they still think Ajax mad, 40 until Tecmessa states in clear
terms that the gale is over and that he is now - (frpovipos (259), he is in
his right mind. Surely we are bound to recall what the Chorus sang at
182 - that never in his right mind (<j>p€vod€v)would he have gone so
far astray. We have seen Ajax mad; we shall see him 'sane' and can
judge the quality of his sanity.
Tecmessa's narrative of the night's work is preceded by a short
dialogue in which she seeks to convince the Chorus that Ajax's new
state of sanity is worse than his state of madness, more distressing for
him and so also for them. She speaks to correct a sudden burst of
optimism on their part; simple-minded and self-centred, they think
their fortunes will be mended now that their master has recovered his
wits (263f). The argument is highly formal and rather strained in
expression. 41 A conclusion is reached at 269 which controverts 263;
39
The aorist participles at 207 and 216 do not in themselvs imply that the mental
sickness is over; and Tecmessa uses historic presents to describe the torture of the
animals (239, 242).
40
This is the implication of aTrAaTos (256). Cf. H. Diller (op. cit. n. 2) 193: 'Mit Aias
in seinem Wahn war eine menschliche Kommunikation ja nicht moglich.' It will
be a question whether he is any more 'approachable' in his 'sanity'.
41
Torrance 276: 'an emphatic, if rather awkward exchange'. The subject of
nenavrai is Ajax (cf. 279), of €vrvx*tv the Chorus (contr. their fears at 2451T.). At
269 the case for Hermann's voaovvros (adopted by Pearson and Dawe) is almost
overwhelming. It is not enough to say, in defence of vooovvres, that it displays
Tecmessa's identification with the fortunes of Ajax: she shares his ate but not his
nosos. The objection to the received reading is that it blurs two distinctions on
which the structure of thought is based: (i) the distinction between Ajax and his
friends (avrfp €K€ivos,CLVTOS, K€ivos~fffi&st i}ft€ts), so thatrj^ieis at 269 should not
include Ajax (which it must if VOOOVVT€S is read); and (ii) the distinction between
Ajax sick and Ajax sound, the Chorus and Tecmessa being sound all along (cf.
273). With voaovvros, 269 is Tecmessa's answer to 263: they thought the end of
Ajax's sickness meant prosperity for them; she argues that it means disaster (cf.
24 The mind of Ajax
Ant. 17 for a contrast of €vrvx€tv with ardodat). It is of course because she enters
into the feelings of Ajax that she sees it in this light. Cf. A. C. Pearson, PCPS 21
(1922)21.
42
Note the pleonasm of 267: £vvd>v as well as the correlative KOWOS iv KOIVOIOL.
£vvu)v is repeated at 273; KOIVOS is picked up by KOIVCJVOS (284), which also relates
to 283. The limits of the Chorus's capacity for sympathetic participation are
perhaps shown by a comparison of 283 and 255. The extent to which Ajax is
himself participant in a community of feeling (267) is the important issue, f weifu
is a common word in Sophocles, cf Pearson on fr. 950: of 31 instances (excluding
fragments) 7 occur in Ajax. Turn to 337f. (where Dawe's napovai . . . £vvwv,
STS 139, is attractive). Is Ajax with them? Or consorting in his own mind with
his old vooyfiara? Turn to 61 of. Is Ajax with them or with his $cia fiavla? On this
see p. 33 below.
43
The Chorus is addressed by Tecmessa as vaog dpwyol T179 Alavros(2Oi), by Ajax
as yivos vatas apwyov T€\v*s (357) ~ *a fulsome periphrasis for "sailors*' (but also
reflecting Ajax's need for help, apwyriY (Stanford). Tecmessa asks them to help
(aprjgare, 329) - with their persuasions (the reading Xoyois is almost necessary
here?).
The mind of Ajax 25
senses (efufrpcov, 306, echoes ^povifios, 259) She describes his loud cries
of lamentation which were followed by silent dejection and by the
refusal of food and drink - symptoms of disease. As the Coryphaeus
says, he is like one possessed;46 and immediately his cry is heard (333).
Is Ajax sick or sound, then? Is he sane or mad? Again, there is
puzzlement on the part of the Chorus. It is as though the Coryphaeus
said to Tecmessa: 'You have told us that Ajax is sane ((fypovifios). Well,
to judge by his wild cries, if not sick, he is in distress through
association with the products of his sickness.' Then Ajax speaks, and
speaks sense, asking for Teucer (342f.).47 'It seems that the man is sane
((frpoveiv).1 The puzzlement of the Chorus, the almost pedantic
attempts of the Coryphaeus to determine whether Ajax is sick or
sound, lack interest or importance in themselves: what is important is
that the audience should be invited to consider the state of the hero's
mind. 48
This they can now judge by his own words. 49 First he expresses his
mental agony in lyric stanzas which are among the most tense and
moving in Greek tragedy; then he speaks, and tells of his resolve to
die. Tecmessa pleads with him, but he ignores her pleas and sends for
his young son (and there is that famous passage to which reference has
already been made). She pleads again, and again he is stubborn. He
returns into his hut, clearly determined upon suicide.
us to believe this - the matter cannot be proved one way or the other; and those
critics - and they exist - who play down the murderous attack itself will wish to
believe it. At 300 the phrase iv noifivats TTITVCJV is repeated from 185, where it was
put in evidence that Ajax was not in his right mind. It does not follow from this,
though it may be suggested by it, that, if he had been sane, he would have
tortured, as well as killed, men. Rosenmeyer, MT I77ff. has some interesting
remarks on Ajax's butchery of the cattle as the acting-out of a fantasy 'as truthful
as the reality he wakes up to' and on the 'man—beast identity',
46
331 f.: 'By 8ian€<froif$do$aithe Chorus mean that a malign power has taken
permanent possession of his mind. The mental trouble outlasts the frenzy (2jg{.y
(Jebb). Stanford speaks of Cassandra, mere exclamations followed by wild
words; and Mr James Dee pointed out to me that Ajax, like Cassandra, sings in
dochmiacs. But there are intervening trimeters (342f.), which adds to the
confusion of the Chorus!
47
O n 33 j{. see Stanford's note and n. 42 above. On 339-43 see Fraenkel, Sem. i2f.
48
Biggs 224 speaks of'the chorus* confusion as to when he is "in his right mind" '.
49
And it will be observed that the Coryphaeus still swings between the poles of
Ajax VOOOJV and Ajax <f>povwv. At 344 he is <f>pov(hv, because he calls (in trimeters)
for Teucer, but his first lyric stanza evokes the comment that 'no sane mind is
here' (d^povrtartos €x*t, 355). 371, with <f>p6vrjaov ci5, is better given to Tecmessa
(see Kamerbeek and Stanford).
The mind of Ajax 27
50
Biggs 224 (on 447ff.): 'The sane Ajax regrets not the planned attack, but the
missed aim.' The relationship between 367 and 303f. is worth noting. In his
madness Ajax had mocked and (as he thought) outraged his enemies; now he
finds himself mocked and outraged. He uses of Athena the word (aiVtfei, 402)
which she had herself used of his torturing the animals (65). It is precisely this
mockery of an enemy which Odysseus rejects (79, contr. 961,969). This theme is
well investigated by G. Grossmann, 'Das Lachen des Aias\ MH25 (1968) 65-85,
who makes the illuminating comment that * "Unmenschlichkeit" ist ein Vor-
recht der allmachtigen Gotter* (84).
51
The decision to kill himself was taken when he was still in the hut? Cf 326. Why
does he call for his son and for Teucer, if not that he is going to die? His lyrics are
obsessed with death, with the impossibility of a continued life. This is not to say
that, from 457 (KCLI VVV ri XPV Spdv;), he does not go over the argument again in
his own mind.
28 The mind of Ajax
52
Clearly one should not attach too much weight to this. But the statement (which
precedes the reference to the Atridae) is the more extraordinary the more one
thinks of it. One might even say it supplies the personal mention of Achilles so
strikingly absent from 421-6. Does Kpdros apioreias, followed by efxaptpev,
convey the idea of a forcible seizure of the status of aristos (which Ajax had in
effect made by his words at 423-6)? It is dangerous to speculate about matters
which are, more or less, outside the drama, such as the feelings of Ajax about
Achilles (upon which Homer is not evidence, any more than he is for the
relationship of Ajax and Menelaus). Did Ajax resent the primacy of Achilles and
the fact that for ten years he had lived and fought under the shadow of a greater
warrior? At any rate La wall (op. cit. n. 13) 292, seems perfectly justified in calling
this a 'preliminary frustration' which made it 'all the more important to him that
he acquire Achilles' arms upon his death'. Cf. the interesting remarks of M. M.
Willcock, BICS 20 (i973) 4, on the Homeric Ajax. This is Ajax' fate - to be
second.*
The mind of Ajax 29
attacked the flocks. No, but to attack the Atridae and, having failed,
to kill himself- that is a true expression of the mind of Ajax.
'Still', says the Coryphaeus, 'stop' (which is futile, because it means
to stop being Ajax); 'let your friends sway your purposes (yvwfxrjs);
give up these thoughts (<f>povTi8as).' N o friend has a greater claim
upon Ajax than his faithful concubine. The speech she now makes is
complex in structure and dense in thought. It deserves careful exa-
mination as a piece of rhetoric, but we are concerned primarily with
the grounds of her appeal and the response - or lack of response -
which they evoke. The speech falls into two parts, dividing at 505-6.
The first half deals mainly with her own plight but ends with an
appeal directed towards the honour of Ajax which will suffer, if his
concubine falls into menial slavery; the appeal is the more forcible
because she can associate his son with it (499). The last line (505)
contains the powerful word 'shameful' (alaxpo), and ends with
'family' (yevei), which acts as a lead into her next appeal. Hardly less
powerful as a word is aidesai (506, 507); 53 hardly less powerful as a
motive is it that he should respect his father and mother and not
abandon them in their old age. Next she returns to his son and to
herself, moving into a field of softer emotion. When she bids him pity
(oiKTipe, 510) 54 his infant son who will be brought up by cruel
guardians, it is the plight of the child and not his own honour on
which the appeal is based. If pity for the weak was not unknown or
unregarded in the heroic world, one may doubt if it was an essential
component of eugeneia. In her own case, she goes on to plead the
obligation created by the conferment of joy and claims that he who
forgets a benefit has lost the status of a eugenes aner. It is Ajax's word
(480), of which she gives, one might say, a 'persuasive' redefinition. 55
The sense of obligation was indeed strong in the heroic world. And it
may be worth noting how similar - how ironically similar - is the
language with which Teucer (at I266ff.) castigates the ingratitude of
53
For alSws as a mark of the Homeric Ajax, see Stanford xxxiii and n. 47. The
contexts are of course military.
54
The syntax of 510-13 is debated (see the editors). The €t-clause should preferably
be taken with OIKTI/J€, the relative clause oaov KCLKOV KTX. being loosely attached:
'so great an evil is i t . . . ' . rovro must refer to the plight of the child, which
Tecmessa thus represents, characteristically, as foremost among the evils she
herself may expect. K&fioi then leads into 5i4ff.
55
On 'persuasive definitions' cf. Adkins, MR 38ff. (who cites for the expression
C. L. Stevenson, Mind 1938, 33 iff.).
30 The mind of Ajax
the Greeks. 56 But that was in the martial context. How much could it
be expected that the mutual obligations of a sexual relationship would
weigh — and weigh with an Ajax? If they weighed with Hector, they
could not outweigh the claims of his honour. 57 Did they weigh with
Ajax at all? Was this, the narrowest and most intimate of all com-
munities, an environment to which he still belonged? For there is one
further point to notice in the speech: that Tecmessa's plea has returned
upon itself, that she has reverted to the theme of relationship. If she
speaks at the end of the pleasure she had given him, not only does she
tell in the first half how she had come to his bed (£vvrj\0ov, 491) but
appeals to him by that bed in which he had been joined to her
(GvvrjXXdxOrjs, 493). (The repetition of the prefix is not accidental.) He
was joined to her as she to him: that the sexual relationship lacked its
ideal symmetry is Tecmessa's tragedy as it was Deianira's. 58
'Pity your son', said Tecmessa. 'I could wish you to have pity as I
have' says the Coryphaeus (525f). And Ajax sends for his son, though
his tone is hard and impatient. As we have seen already, the presence
of the child serves to show him as a man so much harder than Hector.
Serves only this? We come to an area in which opinions differ greatly,
and in which it is not easy to avoid dependence upon subjective
impressions. What capacity for pity, for affection, did this Ajax
possess? Did he love Tecmessa? Did he love his son? In what degree if
at all were his actions influenced by such softer emotions? 5^
One thing we can say with certainty about Eurysaces: that his
father looks upon him in the light ofeugeneia and of a male succession
- one who is to follow Ajax in a career of heroism as Ajax had
56
Note especially xapis, htappel (cf. airopp€i, 523), fivrjanv. Ajax, the man of war,
rejects the appeal of Tecmessa: the pleasure of their relationship means little to
him in comparison with warlike matters and to respect it is not part of his code of
honour. It is ironical therefore that his warlike services to the Greeks should not
evoke a lasting x a p i s » t n a t their memory too should fade.
57
Andromache was a wife, Tecmessa a slave-concubine. But too much need not be
made of this distinction. If she calls herself SovXrj (489), by contrast with her
birth, she refers to her state as a f^Aos (503), by contrast with Xarp€ia. Ajax
intends that Eurysaces shall be accepted as a legitimate heir and perform the
functions of one (5671T.), which implies perhaps a kind of status for his mother.
See also n. 63.
58
There seems to be a relationship between 48of. and 492f, in respect of the divine
and human factors. The gods have willed her slavery, but Zeus Ephestios
protects it; Ajax has taken her by violence (x«*pO» but she has become his
bedfellow so that she has a claim upon him.
59
The issue arises again in the Deception Speech, on which see p. 48.
The mind of Ajax 31
60
On the self-centredness of Heracles in the Trachiniae, who also seems to regard
his son as a mere extension of himself, see p. 84.
61
545-51 tough; 552-5 tender; 556-7 tough; 558-9 tender; 5601!. tough.
62
552-5 are not easy. 554b (not in Stobaeus) is deleted by editors, but Dawe adds a
warning that it may have replaced a genuine verse, presumably because he saw
that the connection of thought between 554 and 555 is not quite satisfactory
without some mediating notion. There is perhaps, as Kamerbeek sees, a case for
retaining 554b. Ajax is preoccupied with his o w n state of mind (hence £rj\ovv).
The sense of 554 is complete in itself, but it has only to be spoken to raise a
question. H o w can TO <f>pov€iv firj8€v be commended? Is it not a KOLKOV? If so,
32 The mind of Ajax
It is the first regular choral ode - the first stasimon; and it is the longest
and most elaborate in the play. It comes at an important climax,
which is also a point of rest. Till now there has been almost con-
tinuous exposition, which has been, in one aspect, an investigation of
the mind of Ajax, in terms of sickness and sanity. The ode has two
dominant themes; and one of them is disease. The other theme is time.
How, if at all, are the two related? The song demands close analysis,
for it is one of the most complex and subtle in the whole of Sophocles,
not to be dismissed in a short paragraph as a more or less appropriate
however, it is at least avd>8vvov, until true knowledge of joy and sorrow comes.
The state o f a young child, it was also that o f the deluded Ajax. Does this pass
through his mind? Should it pass through ours?
If 552-7 are self-centred, what of 558f.? Which have something of the same
poetic quality as Track. 1441!., where so different a character as Deianira envies
the carefree virgins of the Chorus (in a similar context of joy and sorrow, cf.
I29ff.). nyTpl TTJSC xo-pfJ-ovrjv. And so welcome to Ajax, for her sake? A joy in
parenthood which he might (like Hector) share if he lived? Or is it the mother's
joy only, the father's concern being with the matters of 55of. and 556f.?
63
What will happen to Tecmessa? It goes without saying that she will accompany
her infant son to Salamis? But what goes without saying tends to go without
dramatic effect. If one is to believe that Ajax is deeply concerned for Tecmessa at
this point of the play, it is better to go the whole hog (with Adams 33) and take
the very harshness of Ajax as evidence 'that he has been moved to the depth of his
being, that only his iron will prevents him from breaking' - if one can believe it.
64
aoj<f>pov€iv KCLXOV (586): see Stanford ad loc. The use of^pcvi in the preceding line
may or may not be accidental.
65
Contrary to a widely held view, Tecmessa probably does not enter the hut with
Ajax, cf. Gellie 281 n. 9; Sicherl (2) n. 101. Fraenkel, MH -jgi. revives the view
that 6501T. refer to conversations which have taken place off-stage between the
acts, but this unfortunate idea is rightly rejected by Sicherl.
The mind of Ajax 33
choral reaction filling the time till Ajax reappears. It does indeed
express the limited, even obtuse, attitudes of this limited and obtuse
Chorus, but Sophocles uses it to tell us things about Ajax which are
beyond the comprehension of the singers.
Str. a . The war-weary sailors are preoccupied with time. 66 Time
has grown old; the months have been countless; the singers are worn
down with time, and there is no prospect but the evil fate of death.
Yet all the while there abides Salamis their home, glorious, happy,
ever visible to the eyes of men, ever resistant to the waves that break
upon it. There could be no finer symbol of the permanence of nature
and the impermanence of man. 67
Ant. a'. From time to disease. As though the troubles of the strophe
were not enough to wrestle with, 68 the sailors have with them an
Ajax hard to cure (SvoOepdnevTos), since he dwells, alas, with a
heaven-sent madness (0€iafxavia). They say 'hard to cure' rather than
'incurable', for they take it as their function to apply such therapy as
will restore him to a mood which is not suicidal. (At no point in the
ode do they recognize the inevitability of his death.) This is a function
of friends (330), and he is with them (^vveorw). But in what sense and
in what degree? He is with them, yet keeping company (gvvavXos)
with a mental sickness.69 And this mental sickness was sent by a god.
Their notion of theia mania had shifted, as we saw; what began as an
explanation of his attack on the cattle has now become descriptive of
the suicidal mood which derived from the Judgement of the Arms
66
On the textual problems of 602-5 see the editors. One simple point: xpovoj (605)
is not to be touched. So far from indicating corruption (so Stanford), xp°v(i> a ^ t e r
Xpovos is a deliberate repetition, a characteristic Sophoclean accumulation of
significant words. 7raAaio$r . . . XP°VO$ *s striking and (as Stanford suggests) could
be an echo of Aesch. Agam. 983-5. Hermann's fxrfvwv for firjXcjv is highly
probable (cf. Phil. 721), to be taken after avrfpidfjLos, the meaning of which is
fixed by avapid^ros in 646 (cf. 1186). There is no reason at all why avrjpidfjLost as
an expression of time, should not agree with the subject iyw: the use of such
expressions applied adjectivally to persons seems to be highly idiomatic and
reveals a Greek way of looking at time as a function of him who experiences it.
(Cf. O.C. 441, with Jebb's note, and probably Track. i64f.; Plato, Rep. 614b,
Theocritus 2.157; the familiar use of xpovios; and many other examples.)
67
e n : 'with an anxious regard for the future' (Stanford, cf. Kamerbeek). dtSrjXov
"AiSav: probably, as Stanford suggests, an etymological pun; and with the
darkness of death contr. rrepi^avros of Salamis.
68
For the metaphorical use oftyeSpos (610) seejebb.
69
The repetition of £vv- is far from careless. Which association is the more
significant?
34 The mind of Ajax
process which has already been carried some way. The action o f the
play began at a particular point o f time, o n a particular night when
Ajax went out and performed his extraordinary action. But almost
immediately w e are taken back to the Judgement o f the Arms from
which the subsequent action is seen to flow. Before that, what? The
weary years of the Trojan War, sung with such feeling by the chorus,
which were yet the years o f the glory o f Ajax. A n d before that? The
hero's son setting out from Salamis for the war.
Str. f}'. T h e aged mother o f Ajax will surely utter no piteous
nightingale-lament, but the shrill tones o f a dirge; she will beat her
breast and tear her hair. 7 3 She will, that is, act as one mourning the
dead. T h e Chorus does not, however, say: 'when she hears that Ajax is
dead', but 'when she hears that he is fatally sick in mind' (or, with a
different reading, 'sick o f a sickness that devours his mind'). 7 4 The
Chorus cannot see or will not say that he is bound to kill himself; and
there is a dramatic reason for this, since later they are to be deceived
into believing that he intends to live. If the references to sickness and
to the mind o f Ajax pick up the disease-theme from the preceding
stanza, the reference to the great age of Eriboea reminds us of the long
span o f time since Ajax left Salamis. 7 5
Ant. j8'. The opening connects closely with the strophe. 'Better
hidden in Hades is the man w h o is sick with folly.' The Chorus cannot
mean that Ajax would be better dead (though that is what Ajax
thinks), since his death is what above all they fear. They mean that his
mother may well lament as for the dead, since the condition of her son
is worse than that o f the dead, sick as he is - and sick /jLarav.76 Then
once again, as in the first antistrophe, w e have the contrast o f present
73
Text and interpretation of 628-3 1 a r e disputed, but the general sense must be as
stated.
74
626: <t>p€vo(i6pa)s, -fjLtopws codd. <f>p€vo^6paj<s Dindorf. One cannot have much
confidence in the form tfrpevofiopws, and Dindorf s suggestion is attractive, cf.
Bv^iopopos at Iliad 7.210,301. This could be another case in which a word from an
Ajax-passage has stuck in the poet's mind (see n. 15 above).
75
The bold form o f expression (iraXaiq.. . . dfiepq) recalls the naXaiog . . . xP°v°s
of 600: more insistence on time. One may hanker after Nauck's ovvrpo<f>osy but,
since the metrical argument is not compelling, hesitate to change the evrpo<f>os of
the tradition. (It is the theme of nurture which is significant.)
76
fidrav is generally, and I suppose rightly, taken to indicate madness: Jebb cites
Aristophanes, Peace 95. Otherwise it might describe a sickness which does not
respond to diagnosis and treatment, cf. SvadcpdnevTos (609). Linforth's useful
discussion of the adverb, (1951) i88f., hardly settles the matter.
36 The mind of Ajax
enclose the references to the breeding of Ajax and to the temper from
which he is supposed to have departed. As in the case of the mother,
the Chorus does not speak of death: it is of his son's 'intolerable doom'
(8va<f>opov arav) the father is to learn. The word ate has been fre-
quently used 79 of the present disastrous state of Ajax. It could
presumably refer to death, but, if we turn to 848 (which is also about
the parents of Ajax) we find his atai distinguished frcm his death. The
ate is the nosos (as it should be to correspond to nosounta in the
strophe). It is called 8va<f>opos, which may merely mean 'intolerable',
but the word occurred at 51 in connection with his madness and could
be a term of medicine. 80 The father, then, must hear of the disastrous
mental sickness of his son — 'a disaster of such kind as, apart from him,
no aion of the Aeacidae has yet nurtured (cflpe^cv)'. The language of
the closing phrase has been much discussed. Interpreters have wished
to understand the statement simply as referring to a disaster which has
supervened at a certain point of (comparatively recent) time, namely,
the Judgement and the consequences flowing from it. The word alwv
must, accordingly, be taken in the sense of 'lot'; and it is true that it
belongs, marginally, to the wide vocabulary of fate. Normally, how-
ever, it is used of the life-span of a human-being, and the Sophoclean
passages quoted in support of the meaning 'lot' or 'destiny in life' all
seem on examination to indicate the character or quality of a continu-
ing, and often a long, stretch of time. 8 * The verb rpefew must, on this
understanding, be taken as a mere synonym for ex^iv; and, very
common as it is in Sophocles, it sometimes seems to mean little -
though always something - more than that. 82 But immediately after
the expression avvTp6<f>ot.s opyais (639), unless Sophocles is to be
79
123,195* 269, 307,363,384-
80
See n. 28 above.
81
Track. 34 (where this reference to the alutv of Heracles balances an implied
reference to the aUjv of Deianira at 2); Phil. 179 (of the disease-stricken life o f
Philoctetes, d. 173). Both O.C. 1736 and Eur. Andromache 1215 refer to a stretch
of life. For aion as part of the vocabulary o f fate, see ch. 7 p. 151.
82
Half-an-hour with Ellendt makes this clear; and, though he uses expressions like
*ut plerumque commode interpreteris €\€iv\ his o w n amplifications generally
reveal how misleading this is. Apart from cases where the word means 'rear' or
'nurture' or 'cherish' or 'increase', a frequent connotation is that of a quality or
mode of life (e.g. Ajax 503). At Phil. 795 the object of the verb is vooov and the
whole point resides in its long continuance. C. Moussy, Recherches sur rp€<f>w
(Paris 1969) 70-2, has reservations about the equation with ex<*>, but does not go
into much detail.
38 The mind of Ajax
convicted of careless writing, one would prefer not to depart too far
from the normal implications of trephein, which implies a process. It is
surely methodologically unsound, in an ode so full of time, to take
two words which naturally imply a process (of time and in time) and
to assume for both an unusual and diluted sense, merely in order to
eliminate a notion fundamental to the ode. But if the words mean
what they seem to say, then the poet is suggesting, through the
subtleties of his lyric diction, that the nosos, which was the ate of Ajax,
is a long-continuing, long-fostered disease, bound up (as the Chorus
fail to see) with his ovvTpo<f>oi opyai, that it is something which has
grown with Ajax during his life-span, something that his life has bred.
The two leading themes of the ode fall together: disease and time,
disease fostered throughout a long process of time, in a receding
perspective stretching out behind the Judgement of the Arms. The
language, and the transitions of thought, are those of lyric poetry,
subtle and elusive. How, then, can we clinch the argument in less
ambiguous terms? By turning to the Messenger's speech and the
words of Calchas.
quarrels.83 This was contrary to all expectation (eg aeXirrcjv, cf. 648),
and it was the work of time. (Had not Ajax said that time is the master
of all things and that in the long course of time there is nothing that
cannot be expected?) It is characteristic of the Chorus (and perhaps a
reflection through them of the mind of Ajax) to assume that it is
enough if Ajax forgoes his wrath, to forget that, if it takes two to
make a quarrel, it takes two to make it up. The opening lines of the
Messenger's speech remind us of the realities. 84 It should be noted
that, towards the end of the song, we find a small cluster of occur-
rences of the word megas (7i3f, 718). Those who can must believe
that this is accidental. Most notably, the epithet is given to Time. 85
Where the word occurred so frequently in the Parodos, we saw that it
was used of the great Ajax, but also of the great forces ranged against
him. Perhaps the question is here: does great time work for Ajax or
against him? Time also enters into the Messenger's speech.
It enters in a twofold connection. The Messenger reports the
strange fact, revealed by Calchas, that it is for this one day alone that
Ajax will be pursued by the wrath of Athena. The prophet had been
insistent: if Ajax is to live, then by every possible device he must be
kept indoors during the day now visible, this present day (/car' rffjuap
Tovfufxives TO vvv TOSC, 753). The warning is repeated at 778: 'If he is
alive this day, then with the help of god we may prove his saviours.' 86
This is the crucial day, the day of tragedy, the day which, as Athena
herself said, tilts the scales of all human things and lifts them up again
(13 i f ) . It is a narrow point of time. Having said that it was only for
this day that Ajax would be pursued by the wrath of Athena, the
83
Cf. 735f., 743. See B. M. W. Knox, GRBS 7 (1966) 217.
84
72 iff. 744 seems to show the same naivety on the part of the Chorus in another
connection: just as Ajax has merely to abandon his wrath against the Atridae
(718) for all to be well, so too he has (as they think) dropped his wrath against the
gods, as shown by the making of sacrifices (71 iff.). We are about to learn what
caused the wrath of the gods against him.
73 if. are of course necessary to the plot: Teucer must not be killed. They may
however also suggest, not that it was unfair to penalize Teucer for his brother's
madness, but that there was still scope for a reasonable diplomatic settlement
(Ajax was still an asset to the Greek army), but one of course which it would have
been psychologically impossible for Ajax to accept.
85
Again at 933, also from the Chorus (see p. 163 n. 31). They sing of time as /-ic'ya?,
not (like Ajax at 646) as fiaxpos: the span of time since thejudgement of the Arms
was not long.
86
M. W. Wigodsky's interpretation of these lines, in Hermes 90 (1962) 149-58, is
adequately criticized by Stanford, 'Addenda to notes' 23 7f.
40 The mind of Ajax
prophet went on to expound the causes of that wrath. Ajax knew that
he was in some sense the victim of Athena (40iff), but he saw her
simply as frustrating his vengeance on the Greeks. That Athena was in
some sense against Ajax has always been clear. But was this more than
the act of a protective goddess saving Odysseus? Only her closing
words give us the right to say so (i27ff.); and their implications have
never been quite clear - until Calchas makes them clear.
In doing so, Calchas takes us back in time; and this is the second
way in which time enters into the speech. He begins by generalizing
about the heavy misfortunes which the gods send on one who, having
the physical nature of a man, yet has more than mortal thoughts. He
goes on to apply his theme to the case of Ajax, about whom he tells
two stories; first his proud answer, when his father bade him seek the
mastery, but ever seek it with the help of (a) god; then his proud
rejection of Athena's help in battle.87 The first saying is described as a
boast: with the formality, the archaic ring-composition, 88 character-
istic of the whole passage it is preceded by tnftiKotnTCDS (766) and
followed by eKOfXTrei (770). It is boastful; it is also senseless (a<f>pova)s,
766), and Ajax himself is called avovs (763): 'foolish', 'lacking in right
mind'. The state of the mind of Ajax has been a point of cardinal
importance throughout the play. In the last choral ode, it appeared (at
least in the first antistrophe) that the Judgement of the Arms was the
turning-point, the event which threw the mind of Ajax off the track,
though the second antistrophe is so phrased as to hint that his mental
trouble had a longer time-span. Now, by Calchas, we are taken back,
not only to the battles of the Trojan War to see Ajax, in the period of
his heroism, rejecting (so un-Homerically) the help of Athena, but
still further, to the time of his departure from Salamis (cf. 613). The
time is marked with some emphasis (air* OLKOJV evdvs i^opixcj/xevog,
762). The interlocutor is Telamon, who may well stand as a represen-
tative of the heroic ideal (as indeed he is seen by Ajax) and so a
touchstone of the normality of his son. 89 The receding perspective,
87
nacre p, diois fi€v tcav 6 firjSev a>v OJXOV
KOLI
iOa TOUT* iniandaeiv KA4OS. (767—9)
alone, and his last chance will have gone, for it is only his friends,
who, if it could be done at all, could restore this mind, now ranging
solitary, to human social life. 94 If he needs friends, he also needs time.
When the Chorus believed that Ajax had indeed softened, they said,
echoing his own words, that great time quenches everything (714). 95
Certainly Sophocles knew, when he wrote Oedipus Coloneus, that
even the strongest passions die down in time (O.C. 4371Y.). Time
could work even for Ajax, as it had worked against him in the long
nurture of his pride. But time must be given time. Is it conceivable
that Ajax, whom time has made what he is, will allow time for time
to do its softening work? Not, surely, now that he has gone out alone
with his sword to the sea-shore. The limit placed upon the operation
of the divine wrath can be of no benefit to him. 9 6
Ajax is bent on death, as Tecmessa now knows (812). When she and
the sailors have left in search of him, he reappears, still sword in hand.
He fixes it point upwards in the ground, stands back, and speaks. He is
now alone, about to take leave of the world, and we can be sure that
what he now says is a true expression of his mind. It is an amazing, and
at the end a deeply moving, speech. It would be the wrong speech, if
some interpretations of the Trugrede were correct. All the more
important, therefore, to examine closely its content and its tone. And
Lattimore's words will provide the starting-point. 'The death is
enacted, like the blinding of Oedipus, in an atmosphere of unreason,
barbarism, primitive passion, where logic cannot reach, whose force
we feel but can never quite account for nor understand.' 97
Unreason, where logic cannot reach. The point is paradoxically
made by the carefully chosen words of the first sentence: el rco KQX
94
Cf. 330 (whatever we read there),
95
fiapalvei T€ KOLI 4>\ty€i (codd., 714). The last three words, not found in Stobaeus
and deleted by some editors, are defended by Knox, HS n. 128, de Romilly,
TG T100, and (more hesitantly) by Kamerbeek. I remain doubtful: the Chorus is
thinking of the extinction of Ajax's blazing passion; there is no need for them to
express the other half of the twofold process of 647 or much desirability that they
should.
96
Cf. Bowra 36; Whitman 7of.; and many others. If Ajax had refrained from
suicide, what would the Greeks have done? The question so obviously will not
arise that perhaps Sophocles did not mean us to consider it (Gellie 16). But cf. n.
84 above, on 73 if.
97
PGT 77. On this speech see also Perrotta is8f.; Dirlmeier 3141T.
44 The mind of Ajax
\oyit,€adai axoXrj (816), 'if a man had leisure for reflection'. It is, as
Jebb saw, the scornful apology of the man of action. But axoXrj is a
word of time. Ajax, to be saved, needed time - and reason. He has
time, but will not give himself enough; when he reflects, it is
upon essentially irrational considerations - that this sword is the
ill-omened gift of Hector, that the very earth is hostile in which it is
stuck.98 Ajax may reflect thus, but it is clear that his act is determined
by passion.
At the human level Ajax has made his preparations well: now he
turns to the gods. And first he prays to Zeus, as he had prayed to him
at 3 87ff. that he might kill Odysseus and the Atridae before he died - a
prayer that was not answered. He asks for a help that he is entitled to
receive (/cat yap ei/cos);99 he asks for his rights, for a getas (and the
word is characteristic). There is of course irony in the fact that he
speaks of burial as 'no extensive privilege', when this is to be the issue
of the whole second half of the play, and when it will be obtained for
him not by Teucer but by Odysseus. This prayer, then, is answered,
though not as he envisages. 100 From Olympian Zeus he moves to
chthonian Hermes, link between the two worlds; from Hermes to the
most awful, and most tragic, of chthonian powers - to the Erinyes,
with a prayer for vengeance. He calls upon them to take note how he
98
O n the sword of Hector see Kitto, FMD 193-5; Poiesis 179-87; YCS 25 (1977)
325f. He demurs at the idea that this is mere primitive superstition; and indeed it
is unlikely that Sophocles introduced the theme three times - twice from Ajax
and once (at considerable length) from Teucer - merely to characterize the
speakers as superstitious. Perhaps we should make a distinction. The speakers are
looking for causes: failing to comprehend the true cause of Ajax's disaster, they
have recourse to the ominous character of a certain action. So far as it has a
rational aspect this lies perhaps in a feeling that it was a bad thing to mitigate
hostility with an exchange o f gifts. For Sophocles, however, there may be a
deeper symbolism. As Kitto points out, this is not the only place in Sophocles
which shows 'the dead reaching out to destroy the living'. Teucer speaks of the
sword as forged by an Erinys (1034); and that is a name which Sophocles does not
use lightly. See further, pp. 162, 210.
99
What does he mean by /ecu yap ei*ds? Is it because Zeus is his ancestor (c£. 387)?
Or is there a suggestion that Ajax as greatest of men requires a service of the
greatest of gods? Cf. Stanford ad l o c , and Perrotta 158, who writes: 'Anche la
sua preghiera estrema a Zeus non e molto pia.'
100
It is often said that Ajax's prayer was answered by the arrival of Teucer, e.g.
Adams 37: 'Zeus himself, then, looks with favour on the man.' But the 'swift
rumour ws dcov TWOS' (998f.) came impartially to all the Greeks and, if Teucer
arrived first, it was for some other reason.
The mind of Ajax 45
is destroyed by the Atridae and to bring them to utter ruin like his. 1 0 1
Was the prayer answered? Upon Agamemnon, but not upon Mene-
laus. Was it justified? Upon the assumptions of Ajax it was, since he
ascribed the Judgement of the Arms to the malice of his enemies. 102
But justification on this score, if it was justified, becomes immaterial,
when Ajax, proceeding from unreason to greater unreason, urges the
Erinyes, swift and punitive, to drink unsparingly of the blood of the
whole Greek army (843f.). It is an amazing curse, which so many
critics, amazingly, have taken in their moral stride. 103
From the dark world of the dead back to the daylight, from the
chthonians back to heaven (ovpavov) and the Sun-god that drives his
chariot up the steep slope of heaven. He, like the Erinyes, is a seeing
god, and it is because he sees that he can tell. 1 0 4 What he will now
have to tell the aged parents of Ajax is not merely his madness (aras)
but his death (jxopov).105 Ajax thinks for a moment of his mother and
101
This must be the general sense. 84 if. as they stand are full of difficulties and best
expunged with Bothe, cf Fraenkel, Sent. 29.
102
By the time that Teucer repeats and amplifies his brother's curse (1389-92) the
Atridae have put themselves firmly in the wrong. See also p. 210.
103
Not so Perrotta, 159, who writes: 'A questo punto, lo sdegno e Todio diventano
giganteschi: confondono insieme colpevoli e innocenti'; and if he finds some-
thing god-like in this, that is not altogether without reason! C f Fraenkel, Sent.
30. Contr. Adams 36: 'He is the victim of a base decision, and in all that host no
voice was raised against it.' But according to Agamemnon (1243) it was a
majority vote. All the evidence for a general hostility of the Greek army towards
Ajax (assembled by Davidson 167) postdates his attack on the flocks (and their
attendants). A similar passionate resentment evokes a similarly comprehensive
curse from Philoctetes (Phil. 1200), on which see p. 292 n. 39 below, Cf. also
Homer, //. 16.976°.
Ajax calls the Erinyes 'swift', because that is what he wants them (vainly) to
be, not what they always were. For the adjective cf. 822, 833, 853. Ajax would
cut time short.
104
Rosenmeyer, MT 186 and Vandvik 137 call attention to the quite extraordinary
request that Helios shall stay his chariot (847) and so interrupt the orderly
sequence of nature. For the sun as source of information, cf. Track. 94ff, as
messenger, cf. Odyssey 8.27of. But is there any parallel for this? For Rosenmeyer
it is significant that 'on the threshold of his death . . . Ajax once more strains his
whole being to interfere with the stream of time'. This perhaps reads too much
into a characteristically self-centred and grandiose conception.
105
Such a distinction is not important here, but looks back to the First Stasimon
(596ff.), on which see p. 37 above.
Ajax thinks o f his parents, and especially of his mother. Not a word o f
Tecmessa or even of his son. It is because his mother belongs to his past and to his
breeding: she was his rpo<f>6s. The notion is picked up at 861,863; it looks back to
the theme of nurture in the First Stasimon.
46 The mind of Ajax
her lamentations, but cuts himself short: his business is with Thanatos.
But immediately he returns to the sun and bids his farewell to the
world of light, to the day, to this day. 106 He bids farewell to Salamis
(where it all began), to Athens and the race that bred him; and then to
the springs and rivers and plains of Troy that took over his nurture.
Eriboea, Salamis, the Troad: what kind of a man was it that they bred?
Every tone in this speech rings true when tried against the tones of
Ajax in the earlier phases of the play. To what degree, and in what
sense, is this still true, when we examine the speech - the famous, the
controversial speech - which he makes, sword in hand, in the pre-
sence of Chorus and Tecmessa?
Ajax had gone into his hut, telling Tecmessa not to be a fool and think
she could school his ethos at this late hour; and the Chorus then sang
their song about his mental sickness and about time. At the end of that
song he comes out carrying a sword and makes a speech which is
taken by Tecmessa and the Chorus to mean that he has undergone a
change of heart; he says he will submit and, be reconciled to the
Atridae, and implies that he has learnt to be sophron. There has been a
great deal of debate about this speech. 107 Was it intended to deceive (a
Trugrede)? Or has Ajax changed his mind, to change it yet again? The
106
A case for deleting 854-8 is put by Fraenkel, Sem. 30.
107
The spectrum of interpretation is vast and varied, and the controversy has been
reviewed by Johansen in Lustrum and, recently, in YCS by Moore and Sicherl
(2). I place here a brief and incomplete survey of opinion. Ajax has abandoned his
intention to commit suicide, but reverts to it when alone (Webster, Bowra). He
has abandoned an original intention to attack the Greeks in favour of suicide and
has done this in the interest of Tecmessa and his son, but conceals his intention
from her (Errandonea). Changing from a man of action to a man of thought, he
finds a good instead of a bad reason for committing suicide (Simpson). He
accepts the truth of what he says with his mind, but his ethos is too strong for him
(Stanford). He has learnt sophrosune, but shows it by the very act of suicide
(Schadewaldt, Sicherl). Thus his acceptance is sincere, his sophrosune new-learnt
and admirable, but they lead paradoxically to the traditional suicide. By contrast:
he accepts the truth of what he says, for others but not for himself (Tor ranee); he
rejects a world in which these things are true (Knox); he leaves a world in which
the Atridae are victorious as no place for him (von Fritz).
It will become clear that I am an adherent o f this last view, of which
Reinhardt is perhaps the protagonist. 'Dem Aias offnen plotzlich sich die Augen,
er erkennt die Welt, doch nicht, urn als Erkennender sich in sie einzufugen, nicht
um ihrer Ordnung sich zu beugen, nicht um dem yvwOi aavrov zu folgen,
sondern um in ihr das Fremde, Gegenteilige zu sehen, woran er nur teilhaben
konnte, wenn er nicht mehr Aias ware' (34). Cf. also Meautis 36-41.
The mind of Ajax 47
110
Knox, HS 12-14; Perrotta 136.
111
Collected papers 223. iOrjXvvdrjv is the impossible word, cf. Dirlmeier 313f. arofia
is carefully chosen to indicate that it is his words only which are softened, but
there is surely an ambiguity here, pace E. Fraenkel, MH 24 (1967) 80 n. 4.: arofia
relates to both the notions in 584 (yXwood aov Tedrfy^mrj). The contrast
<f>p4v€s I ard/xa (cf. Perrotta 153 n. 1: 'ci aspetteremmo invece, idrjXvvdrjv <f>p€va)
would be too obvious, were it not cloaked by the ambiguity? Cf. Knox, HS 15:
'We can see, in the words he uses, the heart harden afresh, the sword regain its
edge.'
The mind of Ajax 49
and so escape the heavy wrath of the goddess. He says that he will hide
this sword of his, digging a hole in the earth, and will place it in the
safe-keeping of night and Hades; and he blames the sword for his
misfortunes, since it was the gift of his great enemy Hector and, after
he received it, he had no good of the Argives. Ajax may have believed
that by a ritual purification he could be rid of Athena's wrath, the
cause of which is not yet clear to the audience and will never be to
him; to him her wrath had been shown by his delusion and the
frustration of his vengeance — it was essentially connected with his
attack upon the flocks, the blood of which he will now, so he says,
wash off. He may have believed that the gift of Hector was somehow
responsible for his troubles; and he affects to believe that, if he gets rid
of it, his relations with the Greeks will improve. Ajax believes that his
troubles were caused, not in any way by himself, but by the wrath of
Athena and the malice of the Greeks; and the two actions which he
announces - the purification and the hiding of the sword - aim,
ostensibly, at restoring relations with his enemies divine and human.
'And so, for the future, I shall know to yield to the gods, I shall learn
to reverence the Atridae' (666f.). 112
Ajax speaks of yielding (eiKew) to the gods, reverencing (acjSeiv)
the kings. Surely he should have reversed the verbs. 113 He uses of the
gods a word he might have used of men: though not in itself at all
blasphemous, it suits the lack of deference that appears in all the
utterances of Ajax to and about the gods. He uses of the Atridae a
word appropriate to gods, which therefore admits an extreme claim
to royal authority, which, if it is barely tolerable by normal Greek
standards, was impossible for Teucer to admit and must be impossible
for Ajax. 114 If there is anything in the speech which betrays its
'insincerity', it is this choice of words. He then reverts to the normal
word: They are rulers (apxovres), so that one must yield (UTTCIKTCOI;)'
(668).
112
The force ofroiydp (666) can perhaps be seen, if we realize that the gods and the
Atridae at 666f. balance the goddess and the Argives at 654-65. 'And so' - having
put paid to the past by purification ceremonies (the gods) and by burying the
sword of Hector (fatal to his relations with the Greeks) - 'for the future' . . . he
will take up an attitude of submission to both gods and Atridae.
113
Cf. e.g. Knox, HS n. 85; Kitto, FMD 189 (contr. Fraenkel, Sent. 21).
1i4
For Teucer's reaction see esp. iO97rT., on which see p. 64 below. The word oefoiv
is used twice by Creon in the Antigone, in a political context, in both cases (166,
744) of reverencing the office rather than the man. In the Oresteia oefti&iv at
Agam. 258 is insincere, not so at 785 (cf. oifias at Cho. 54).
50 The mind of Ajax
Ajax amplifies his reason for yielding. The horizons expand, and
we return to the breadth of vision - the cosmic scale - of the opening
lines of the speech, which spoke of time, of the growth and decay
which takes place within if, of the breaking of what appeared most
strong.x 15 There we had time, now we have the regular successions of
nature which are the measures of time. These are formidable things,
the strongest things in the world, and yet they yield to dignities, to
prerogatives, to rt/Ltac. Why then should not Ajax yield? (And we
remember that his whole life had been based upon the emotions
which surround TI/ZT/; that he was bent on suicide because he felt
himself atimos.) Winter gives place to summer, night to day, storm to
calm, sleep to waking. 'How shall we not learn to be sophronesV (677).
If the speech returns to the cosmic themes of the opening, there is a
curious difference in the argument. Jebb refers, not unnaturally, to the
famous speech of Ulysses in Troilus and Cressida about 'degree'; and
the word TI/LITJ might in itself suggest a hierarchy of kings and lesser
princes and squires, each with his own defined status. And indeed it is
the rational train of Ajax's words that he will now recognize the
paramount authority of the Atridae. Yet what seems at first to be an
argument for discipline in terms of hierarchy 116 turns out to move in
a quite different range of ideas: the basic theme is not hierarchy but
alternation. It is true that the elemental forces have their own privi-
leged spheres of operation and do not encroach upon one another's,
but this is in no way analogous to the relationship between Ajax and
the Atridae. One must ask what reason Sophocles had for departing
so radically from this analogy. It is not enough to say that the sole link
is that of yielding, though it is of course significant and effective (and
corresponds to the opening) that, whereas the great powers of nature
yield, Ajax will not yield. 117
Observe, then, that in each case cited from the realm of nature there
is a change from 'bad' to 'good': from winter with its snows to the
115
The two passages are linked: 669 (ra Sciva KCLI TO. Kaprepwrara) recalls 650 (os rd
8€LV* €KCLpT€pOVVT0T€).
116
So taken by Rosenmeyer, MT 184: Tor without a hierarchy, without a chain of
command, the world would collapse.'
117
Nor is it enough to say - what may well be true - that Sophocles has deliberately
used language which might recall to an Athenian audience the succession of
magistrates in the Athenian constitutional system (cf. Knox, HS 23f.). Magis-
trates did indeed yield annually to their successors, but there is a gulf between this
and the regular reciprocal alternations in nature of which Ajax is made to speak.
The mind of Ajax 51
fruits of summer; from dreary night to the white horses of the day;
from storm to calm; from the fetters of sleep to the freedom of
waking life. 118 It is characteristic of summer and winter, day and
night, sleep and waking, that they are in regular alternation. But the
night of death is irreversible, the sleep of death is endless. Is Ajax then
moving from storm to calm, from darkness to light? From the storm
which has already been used as metaphor of his mental plight? 119 The
Chorus will greet his supposed change of heart as the bright light of
fair weather (7o8f.). But it had not taken place. Perhaps the question is
not so much whether Ajax will yield to the Atridae as whether Ajax
sick will yield to Ajax sound. 'How shall we not learn to be sophronesT
But he has not learnt; the storm intensifies, and he leaves the sunlight
for the endless night of death (8s6ff.).
In the next six lines of the speech (6y8ff.) the notion of change - of
alternation - is applied to human affairs, to friendship and enmity.
Though those too are polar opposites, this might seem an abrupt
descent from the cosmic level of the preceding passage; and it is
abruptly introduced. 120 By returning to the cosmic themes of its
opening the speech had seemed to be on the way to a close; and the
final line of the passage appears definitive. Yet what follows is perhaps
the most significant section of the whole speech. For it shows us not
only that Ajax will die, but the spirit in which he will die: it implies
118
Cf. Kitto, Poiesis 181; Lattimore, PGT 70 n. 22 (on 6 7 4 ^ ; Gellie 12.
119
2o6f., 257f., 351-3. See Stanford's App. C, 275f, for the symbolism of storm,
and of light and darkness. I cannot agree that when Ajax hails the light of the sun
in his closing words (8451Y.), 'Sophocles is making it clear that in the end Ajax has
reached the light again' or that 'the ultimate triumph of Ajax's great-heartedness
is reflected in his last great invocations to the light'. Such a conclusion seems quite
at variance with the general tone of the speech and, in particular, with his
invocation of the Erinyes. He is bidding farewell to the light he has rejected (or
which has rejected him), and now he is 'for the dark'. H. Musurillo, The light and
the darkness 10-11, calls attention to the symbolism. 'The light and the dark
express the two sides of Ajax's nature', but it is going too far to say that 'in his
saner moments, Ajax recognizes the two sides of his character' under this
imagery (citing 394^).
120
The word oax$>pov*iv at 677 is the meeting-point of two different, but not
unrelated, meanings. It implies not only the acceptance of discipline (reverting in
ring-composition, as Kamerbeek points out, to 666-8) but also the abandonment
of his turbulent hatred and so leads into 6781T. On that passage cf. B1CS 26 (1979)
2f, where the textual problem of 678 is discussed and it is suggested that the
varying use of singular and plural for the first person may be a clue to its solution.
52 The mind of Ajax
opposed to dikaios.' But the point is actually more subtle: the contrast lies with
nadwv avreSpcjv, and it is a mark of the agathos (and of the dikaios?) to retaliate a
wrong: how then can he be regarded as KCLKOS <j>voiv? At O.C 919$. it is a matter
ofpaideusis: the injustice consists in seizing suppliants and not behaving properly
as a xenos, both matters covered by the old code. Prior to Sophocles, we find
KOLK01 characterized by lawlessness and injustice at Aesch. Suppl. 402ff. (cf.
Adkins, MK113).
CHAPTER THREE
With the suicide of Ajax something has reached completion, not only
an action but the revelation of a mind which accounts for that action.
The play begins again, with a new Parodos. The Chorus re-enters in
two groups, searching; and the scene has justly been compared with
the searchings of Odysseus at the beginning of the play.1 What was
Odysseus looking for, and what did he find? He was looking, as ever -
so Athena says — for some way to get at his enemies: what he found
was an object-lesson in the frailty of human fortunes, he found Ajax
in an aspect with which he had not reckoned. With the suicide this
lesson is complete. The Chorus and Tecmessa lament. Something is
over, but something is about to begin. Enter Teucer: a new character,
a new tracker (997), brought by a new phatis (978), a new baxis (998);
and his entry leads into a new issue. Ajax must be buried; and upon
the burial of Ajax the whole of the remainder of the play turns.
It is an old problem. Does, or does not, interest go out of the play
with the death of Ajax? Not, perhaps, if we use our eyes and see the
corpse, with a child and a woman in attendance; not, perhaps, if we
use our imaginations to enter into a Greek preoccupation (which we
are, oddly, supposed not to share) with the disposal of a dead body.
Sophocles was fully competent to maintain the interest and wrote
scenes which are effective even upon the modern stage. It is some-
times said that the second part of the play is necessary in order to
rehabilitate Ajax; and it is sometimes added that this is because he was
a great Attic cult-hero, as though Athenian feeling would not have
tolerated it, if he had been left humiliated and unburied.2 The value of
1
See Kamerbeek on 874. The first speech of Athena is full of words of seeing: then,
at the end of the scene, 118 (6pq.s), 125 (opw). Cf. 876-8; 992-1004.
2
C f e.g. Adams 23-6; Rosenmeyer, MT 187; contr. A. C. Pearson, CQ 16 (1922)
57
58 The burial of Ajax
this point is not easy to estimate. One must, moreover, ask in what
sense he is rehabilitated. 3 In the sense, certainly, that this proud man
obtains a recognition of his services grudgingly conceded to the
advocacy of his greatest enemy, which is ironical. It is the tribute of
Odysseus which, if anything, might be said to constitute rehabili-
tation. Yet this tribute establishes nothing we did not know. Odys-
seus testifies to his arete (1357); it is a brave man's corpse (1319); after
Achilles he was the best man (1339-41) that came to Troy. All which
in itself implies nothing whatever except that his prowess as a fight-
ing-man was outstanding. In this respect Odysseus places him next to
Achilles, that is above himself. And here we return to an issue on
which interpreters are deeply divided. Is this not an admission that the
Judgement had been unjust? 4 Sophocles must have meant his
129; Kitto, FMD i82f. P. H. Burian, 'Supplication and hero cult in Sophocles'
Ajax\ GRBS 13 (1972) 151-6, points to the remarkable combination of motifs at
1168-84, where the child Eurysaces not only guards the corpse but also places
himself as a suppliant under its protection; he suggests that this ceremony enacts,
at least symbolically, the consecration of Ajax as a heros. If there is a hint of
hero-status here, it would not seem to have much prominence. It is not so much
that a burial in the Troad lacks relevance to Attica: locality could be important, as
in the case of Oedipus, but the fact that the only known tomb of Ajax was far
away did not prevent him from having cults in Salamis and Athens or from
exercising powers of protection there. The point is rather that there is so little hint
in the play of that posthumous power to help and to harm on which Oedipus
Coloneus is as insistent as Ajax is reticent. 'We can read what Sophocles did say; are
we to neglect that in favour of what he did not say?' So Kitto in YCS 25 (1977) 322
at the end of a pungent paragraph which seems to me adequately to dismiss that
over-emphasis on the notions of 'rehabilitation' and 'consecration' found, for
instance, in the same issue in Sicherl (2) 97f
3
Torrance 276: 'Though his heroism, his arete (1357), has won him a degree of
vindication, that vindication is valid, and could exist, only in the eternal change-
lessness of death, for the terms on which it rests are incompatible with the flux
which is life . . . What has happened to Ajax, his crime and his fall, has not been
undone, and could not have happened otherwise.' He criticizes the exaggerated
terms of Whitman 63, 68, 72. This is not to deny that the worse the Atridae
behave the more the sympathies of an audience turn away from them and towards
Ajax, which is a not uncommon dramaturgical effect. Compare the reaction in
favour of Pentheus at the end of Bacchae (esp. I3o8flf.); and something similar
happens in Agamemnon (esp. 14896°.). The mourning figures of Tecmessa and
Eurysaces contribute to this movement, and so do the words of the Chorus at
I2Ilff.
4
Cf. e.g. Adams 34, 36; Perrotta 137; Whitman 72; I. M. Linforth, 'Three scenes in
Sophocles' Ajax', U.Cal. Publ. in Class. Phil. 15 (1954) 25; Ronnet 78f. The best
statement of this case is by Knox, HS 23. Contr. Kirk wood, SSD 72. There are
two separate issues: whether the Judgement was rigged, whether it was (by heroic
standards) unjust.
The burial of Ajax 59
We shall learn nothing new about Ajax, but a great deal about
Teucer, Menelaus, Agamemnon and Odysseus, when the unburied
corpse of the hero (as that of Polynices in Antigone) provokes the
behaviour of others for good or ill.7 The interest moves, but perhaps
we need not say that it moves to a disparate theme. In the first part of
the play Sophocles had been extracting tragic implications from the
old heroic code of honour. The political and social background was
almost exclusively Homeric; 8 and against it we see an Ajax who
embodies the old heroic arete, but carries it to a point that is more than
Homeric, with a logic that has nothing to do with reason. No
mitigations are accepted; and heroic self-sufficiency is shown in the
process of destroying itself. For how can this ideal be reconciled with
social life? A contradiction is revealed inherent in the code between its
social and its individualistic aspects. The individual strives to be
outstanding and to obtain the greatest possible prestige, but it is only
within a community and in the eyes of his fellows that the prestige can
be won.9 If his claims are uncompromising - and not admitted, he can
only cut himself off from the community; and this is what Ajax did,
first by his attack upon the Greeks, and then by his suicide; and in the
interval lived in a private world. In these circumstances, it will be
noted, no appeal to aidos can have meaning. As Adkins writes: 'It must
be such aidos which holds Homeric society together, in so far as it is
7
On the burial-issue Letters 133ff. is answered by Kitto, FMD 18if. On Ant. see p.
120 below.
8
Except, perhaps, that the reference to the position of the Atridae at 668 anticipates
the later debates. See Stanford ad loc. and p. 283 n. 3, though I cannot follow him
all the way. See also Knox, HS 23, but, if there is any hint here at Athenian
magistracies, it cannot be a very strong one, for reasons given at p. 50 above.
9
A. W. H. Adkins, JHS 89 (1969) 7-21, has some illuminating remarks on 'the
psychological pressures of living in a shame- (or results-) culture' (p. 18) as
reflected in Homeric vocabulary. 'Not good intentions, but results, are demanded
of the Homeric ayaSos, in all his activities: he is constantly faced, or threatened,
with a demand that he should succeed in doing what he cannot do; and a
psychological response of frustration, distress and anger, all confused together,
seems not inappropriate to his situation' (p. 15). M. Simpson, Arethusa 2 (1969)
88ff., has a good reference (p. 92) to 'the potential for chaos within the heroic
world' and 'the contradiction inherent in heroic society'. I cannot follow him,
however, when he suggests that Ajax's madness (in taking animals for men) is the
product of conflict, the Atridae and Odysseus being at once both friends and
enemies, creating an impasse, an unbearable contradiction, so that he opts out of
reality. Ajax is too monomaniac for this, his sense of honour so hypertrophied
that, after the Judgement, his attitude towards them switches, completely and at
once, to an extreme of enmity.
The burial of Ajax 61
though the old world was mustering its religious forces to defend the
hero's body. There is a long pause, Teucer absent, a tableau in the eye
of the audience, the Chorus singing their nostalgic ode. We wait for
Agamemnon - and for Odyssseus.
It is sometimes said that Agamemnon is a more impressive figure
than his brother, with more authority, more dignity. More authority,
certainly; more dignity, if it is more dignified to call your opponent a
bastard than a bowman. One wonders, however, whether the entry
of Agamemnon may not be a calculated disappointment, because he
is so like his brother, the tone of the two scenes so similar. Vulgarity is
still pervasive. But perhaps the most striking feature of Agamem-
non's first speech is his complete disregard of the burial-issue as such.
He is preoccupied with the issue of insubordination, which he affects
to see in terms of a half-barbarian bastard, who is Teucer, defending
an Ajax who, being dead, is nothing and who, alive, was deserving of
no particular respect. Teucer replies with a courageous and just
defence of Ajax against the gross under-valuation of Agamemnon
but also, in defending himself against the stigma of bastardy, rakes up
scandals of the house of Atreus. Again, a controversy quite irrelevant
to the tragic situation. There is an impasse, and Odysseus must enter,
since it is time the accents of nobility were heard. We are often told
that Sophocles, by the great urbanity of his style, makes his heroes talk
like gentlemen, which is true when a Philoctetes speaks with a
Neoptolemus, an Oedipus with a Theseus. He can also, short of
colloquialism, make them wrangle like stall-holders in the agora.
In his long speech, Agamemnon had written off Ajax as a megas
bous, commending those of sound mind (01 <f>povovvT€seu, 1252). He
could well be thinking of Odysseus. He goes on to warn Teucer that
he will taste the same medicine, unless he acquires some sense (el fjurj
vovv KaraKTrjar) TIVO). He is defending a dead man: avSpos OVK€T*
ovros aAA* 77817 OKL&S. But what man is more than a shadow? This is
something that Odysseus knows (i25f.) and which will lead him - the
free man who comes to plead the case for Teucer (i26of.) - to defend
the dead from outrage, which will be the supreme testimony to his
own sophrosune. When Agamemnon speaks of hubris (1258) and
sophrosune (1259), he has no perception that he commits the one and
lacks the other, but the Coryphaeus sees it, when, listening to the final
preposterous insult, he commends sophrosune to both participants
(1264Q.
66 The burial of Ajax
22
1320-5. For retaliation in word as well as action, cf. pp. 2221*. below (on Electra).
23
dpaXy-qrcos (1333, cf. 946) is reinforced by fi-q rXrjs.
24
Bia implies a contrast with peitho and leads ultimately to the Aeschylean (and no
doubt proverbial) paradox of 1353: yield to the persuasions of friends and you are
still the master. Cf. Aesch. Agam. 943 (with Fraenkel's note).
25
Cf. Rosenmeyer, MT 196.
The burial of Ajax 67
is not kalon. In a closely similar context at Ant. 1056, Creon, who had
taken a similar revenge, is rebuked by Teiresias, using the word
aischrokerdeia, which he says is characteristic of the tyrant. 30 It is often
alleged that, when Agamemnon replies that 4it is not easy for a tyrant
to be pious (euaejSeti')', he is pleading raison d'etat.31 But this is wrong.
Unlike his brother, Agamemnon does not indulge in political theory.
Rather, it is a half-confession that the temptations of power are too
much for him and a half-admission that there is an argument of
eusebeia against him. In the end, however, it is not considerations of
piety or justice, still less humanity, that weigh with him, but a
calculation of the value of Odysseus' friendship.
Before he yields, he makes one more effort, reminding Odysseus of
the kind of man to whom he is doing a service (1354); and the passage,
rightly taken, is not without interest. Odysseus replies: T h e man is an
enemy, but once was noble (yevvaios)' 'What are you going to do?
Are you respecting the body of an enemy so?' 'Yes, for arete weighs far
more with me than enmity.' 32 'Yet men like that are utterly capri-
cious (C/ZTTA^KTOI) . . . Do you commend the acquisition of such
friends?' It is surprising that the adjective e^nrX^Kros has so often been
taken as referring to Odysseus, 33 whose friendship for the Atridae
and its value are fixed points never called in question. Agamemnon is
saying in effect: granted the one-time arete of Ajax, what value has it
in point of friendship, when it can change in a moment to murderous
little doubt that the 'gain' in question is the killing of Polynices. Cf. YCS 25 (1977)
24-8.
30
Seep. 126.
31
e.g. *As a king, he must uphold the common weal, and punish treason* (Jebb); 'his
position as commander-in-chief compels him to be inexorable' (Stanford). But cf.
13341"., as discussed above.
32
The sense of 1357 emerges from a corrupt text (cf. Da we, STS 172). It is clear that
ap€-rq looks back to 1355 (yewatos nor* Jjv)y €\Bpos to 1356 (€\Bpov)\ and the
words are generally, and perhaps rightly, taken to refer to the dp€Trj and €\0pa of
Ajax. Perhaps, however, they are so generalized as to apply equally to Odysseus,
who feels it incumbent upon one agathos to recognize the merits of another.
Teucer (i38i£f.), addressing Odysseus as apioros, praises him precisely for having
defended Ajax against outrage, although he (Odysseus) was his greatest enemy.
33
Contr. Kitto, FMD 194, who without comment takes it, rightly, of Ajax. The
point is argued in BICS 26 (1979) 3f As to 1359, it has no more profundity in
relation to the Ajax-situation than the hero's own words at 6781T., which it recalls
(on which see pp. 52f. above). Greeks of this generation had doubtless been struck
by the mutability of friendship and enmity between states (cf. also O.C. 610-15
and P.A. Brunt, CQ 19, 1969, 245). But what real bearing has this commonplace
upon the megalomaniac reactions of a heroic Ajax?
The burial of Ajax 69
attack? Are not such friends capricious and unreliable? The point is
not without validity as a criticism of the unstable emotionalism of
Ajax; and Odysseus cannot answer it, except with a trite generaliza-
tion inviting a rejoinder which in its turn does not lack force. 'Do you
commend the making of such friends?' Odysseus cannot answer this:
he can only bring a charge of obstinacy against Agamemnon. For
Agamemnon is stubborn in his way, like Ajax, but he has the sense to
yield, as a favour to his valued friend (xapiv, 1371), though he yields
with a bad grace and without responding to the humanity and piety
of Odysseus.34
of heroic values and attitudes, but also, as a tragic poet, aware of the
disastrous consequences to which they might lead, not least when
they masqueraded behind specious talk of justice and moderation?
Thucydides knew this: so why not Sophocles?
There are Menelaus and Agamemnon; there is also Odysseus. The
first half of the play begins with a searching Odysseus and discovers
the nature of Ajax; the second half begins with the people of Ajax
searching and ends with the discovery, to their astonishment, of an
Odysseus who is emancipated from a self-destructive heroism with-
out falling victim to an equally self-destructive despotism. If he
belongs to a world which reasons and argues, it is not the world of
Realpolitik, regardless of everything but power, regardless of religion
and humanity, but a world which, because it acknowledges human
status, possesses the virtue ofsophrosune, a world which could look at
friendship and enmity without the cynicism of a Bias or the frenzied
emotionalism of an Ajax or a Teucer. Did Sophocles believe in the
existence or the possibility of such a world? The question is unanswer-
able. But perhaps for Sophocles the most admirable thing about this
Odysseus he put upon the stage was that, like Tecmessa, and no doubt
like many ordinary Athenians, if few men in power, 36 he was capable
of pity. That human pity wins a victory, that persuasion wins a
victory over violence at the end of the play, is not the least striking
feature of this Sophoclean tragedy. Such victories seem to have been a
feature of the later trilogies of Aeschylus, but in the other extant plays
of Sophocles it is rarely, if ever, that persuasion prevails for good. 37
At the beginning of the preceding chapter, we considered the form
of the play: the way in which the Ajax-tragedy is framed between
two appearances of Odysseus, the theme of sophrosune being also
prominent, through Calchas, in the centre of the play - a form which
carries a dangerous temptation to over-simplify the interpretation in
terms of a hubristic Ajax justly punished and, by contrast, an Odys-
seus who has the fine role. There is also a danger, not avoided by all
critics, of playing-down the latter. He is, by comparison with the
protagonist, unheroic, which is enough to damn him in the eyes of
some. Yet he is admirable; he is humane and redeems a brutal
36
I have in mind the Mytilenaean affair, when, as Thucydides tells us, the Athenians
began to reflect that their decree was cruel and excessive; Cleon attempted to stifle
their impulse towards mercy and Diodotus thought it unwise to answer him
except upon his o w n ground (cf. BICS 12 (1965) 70—82).
37
Cf. e.g. p. 274 below.
*J2 The burial of Ajax
Trachiniae
One must begin with Deianira who presents the easier aspect of the
problem, for we only find ourselves in difficulty when we approach
that nice apportionment of blame to which critics are so much more
prone than dramatists. She is a prey to fear and capable of pity.
Sophocles sometimes uses key-words or themes in the Aeschylean
manner; and that is how he uses the notion of fear - and words of fear
(OKVOS, <j>6^os, rap/Hew, SeSoiKevcu, and others) — in this play. 9 One
might say that the rhythm of the first half of the play is the rhythm of
Deianira's fears. The Prologos tells the story of a life of fears. First, fear
of marriage to the monstrous river-god (7, 24). From this she was
saved by Heracles, by the dispensation of Zeus Agonios, who brought
the struggle to a good end. If it was truly good. For marriage to
Heracles only caused her fear after fear (28), as he came and went on
his labours. These labours are now surmounted, and her fears should
be over. But they are not. 'Now when he has risen above those trials -
now it is that my fears are strongest' (36f); and she tells of his long and
8
Whitman 107.
9
Observed by Torrance 302.
76 Trachiniae
neither know nor learn to know; women who commit them I detest.
But if by love-spells I can prevail against this child — by charms aimed
at Heracles, the means to the deed are ready.' She knows that what she
is proposing may be regarded as an act oftolma, but weighed against
this in the balance is the chance that she may regain the love of her
husband. She adds: 'Unless I am thought to be acting wickedly
(jxdraiov). If so, I will stop at once.' And so she would undoubtedly
have done. Here Sophocles has given a twist to the screw of irony. We
can imagine what the Nurse with her peasant shrewdness would have
said, but at this moment of crisis Deianira's advisers are a set of
inexperienced girls; and she is as innocent and guileless as they. 22 It is
not unfair to paraphrase her exchange with the Coryphaeus on these
lines: 'If you have reason to believe it will work, we think your plan is
a good one.' Deianira is honest: 'I think it will work, but I have never
put it to the p r o o f 'It is only by trying that you can tell.' Deianira has
leaned upon a reed which breaks. Lichas approaches, and she must ask
the Chorus for their secrecy: 'Act in darkness, and, though your deeds
are shameful, you will never be brought to shame' (596f.). 23 This is a
magic? (ii) What did Deianira have in mind, when she spoke of /ca/cat TOA/X.CU? On
(i) we have extreme views from Bowra 127 (strongly condemnatory) and from
Whitman 114 ('Sophocles did not wish the use of this love potion to be considered
criminal'). On (ii) Ronnet ioif. suggests that killing Iole or spoiling her beauty
were the criminal acts which D. had in mind. More probably we should look,
with the scholiast, to the murder of a husband: Perrotta 5O4f. translates by 'le
audacie omicide', and Reinhardt 42 n. 2 (p. 251) compares the return of Heracles
(with Iole) to the return of Agamemnon (with Cassandra). The Greek attitude
towards the use of such magic was probably ambivalent: so too, as 1 see it, was that
of D., who draws a distinction between *a*at roXfiai (with a shade of emphasis on
the epithet?) and the use of^CXrpa (thrown out emphatically and then re-inforced
by diXtcrpoioi rols ty 'Hpa^Aci). At least she hopes that such a distinction can be
drawn. But her conscience is not clear, and at 587 she does say pdraiov (which
means more than 'futile'). And is \x.€\vf]\dvT]rai altogether a happy word?
22
For the youth of the Chorus, deliberately stressed, cf. 1411T.; also 821 and 1275
(with n. 4 above). For the Nurse as a wise counsellor, cf. 52 f. N o doubt Kitto's
Chorus of Solicitors would have been even better!
23
596f. are taken otherwise by Whitman 115; Kamerbeek ad l o c ; Ronnet 102. All
take npdoaeiv in the sense of'suffer' or 'fare', which of course it can well bear with
a neuter adjective (Whitman cites Eur. Or. 538, among other passages). Ronnet
argues that npdooeiv accompanied by an adverbial accusative always has the sense
of'aboutir a tel resultat, etre dans telle situation'. But why need this accusative be
regarded as adverbial (any more than that at Or. 535)? As I see it, there is no
essential difference here between alaxpo. npdoorjs (597) and n . . . -npdootiv
fidraiov (586f.). Deianira fears that the attempt itself, and not merely its failure,
will entail an adverse judgement, if it becomes known. Cf. Kirk wood, SSD 114
n. 16.
80 Trachiniae
the crowd, he does not just say, as any normal man might do, 'Come
and help me': he says 'Come to me, my son, do not shun my trouble,
not even if you must share my death' (797f.). 34 The closing scene is
governed by this attitude towards his son, of whom he makes a series
of outrageous demands. It is not perhaps simply that he holds an
extreme view of patria potestas, but rather that he can regard Hyllus in
no other light than as an extension of his own individuality, 35 his own
phusis, which explains, among other things, his insistence that he and
no other shall go to bed with Iole. 36 This attitude is characteristic and
might be described as a lack of suggnomosune, of that power to enter
into the feelings of another that Deianira had shown. Heracles is
self-centred and ruthless in every relation - towards his enemies, but
also towards his servant Lichas, towards his son and towards his wife.
Without pity as he has been without fear, he is the complete antithesis
of Deianira. Heracles feels pity only for himself and only in the
extreme of agony and weakness, when he seeks from others the pity
he has never shown (801, iO7of., 1080).
We are made to see Heracles in a repellent light. But that is not how
Deianira saw him, nor Hyllus, nor the Chorus. They see him as a very
great man. They see him, we may say, in his traditional role ( or one
of his traditional roles) as KOLWIVIKOS, aAc£i#ca#co9, ayaOos, a supreme
embodiment of arete. If there is a clash here, it is not used, as it might
be by Euripides, for satirical effect, but is inherent in the facts of the
situation. Heracles is a great man who has done great things, carried
through a whole series of ordeals (athloi), and rid the world of
destructive monsters. This he had been able to do only because he was
supremely strong and supremely hard. In dealing with monsters he
had matched crude violence with greater violence. 37 This was the life
he had led, and this was the man he was. His arete was indeed supreme:
it was physical strength, endurance and courage carried to their
highest conceivable point.
With great strength of body go great physical appetites. This too
was part of the traditional role of Heracles - the great eater and
drinker, the great lover: an aspect, naturally, developed in satyr-plays
and comedies, as for instance in the Frogs. The drunkenness of
34
Kitto, Poiesis i69f.; Ronnet 97.
35
Is the attitude of Ajax towards his son so different? See ch. 2, p. 31.
36
See n. 39 below.
37
Seep. 89 below.
Trachiniae 85
The tragedies of Deianira and Heracles are both tragedies of sex, since
both are destroyed by a Kypris to whom alone belongs the power and
the victory, but the same power works upon them in different ways.
The asymmetry is obvious. Heracles wins a woman for whom he
fought with a monster; the fight, so graphically described in a choral
ode (497ff.), was brutal and animal, and the stronger brute won, while
Deianira waited in fear for the outcome. One writer 41 who has
written admirably about the ode speaks of the sequel as 'the animal
seizure of the wretched prize'. This, surely, is off the mark. For
Deianira Heracles' victory over Achelous was liberation from a
ghastly fear, a good dispensation of Zeus Agonios. She was glad to be
the bride of Heracles and, being a woman of normal sexuality, loved
him. Her fears were for his absences, while his manifold sexual
conquests were a matter of relative indifference to her, until, when
her own youth was fading, he sent back to her home a young woman
of great beauty to supplant her in his bed. She found she could not
tolerate this and took action, enlisting, without her knowledge, the
aid of a brute whose sexuality matched, but whose brute force could
not match, that of her husband. Convinced that it is hopeless to
fight against the gods, she tries to force their will with magic, not
knowing that the 'magic' she uses is the product of a sexual conflict,
the shrewdly calculated revenge of a lustful monster. The very
antithesis of Heracles, timorous and sensitive, under the power of the
same force of sex, she brings about his destruction; the least brutal of
human beings, she brings about what the brutes could not, unaided
by her, achieve.
Deianira is a normal woman; Heracles is a phenomenon. And he is
the son of Zeus. It is the character and career and tragedy of Heracles,
40
Mrs Easterling has pointed out to me that the rather frigid contrasts between free
and slave at $2$. and 6if. may be leading towards this theme.
41
Gellie6 3 f.
Trachiniae 87
into it, those references should be investigated. They may throw light
upon the motivation of Zeus, but also upon that of Heracles; they
may raise the question whether he was the son of Zeus for nothing.
But this must wait for a later chapter.50
9i
92 Sophocles and the irrational
i. Antigone 781-800
The scene between Creon and Haemon has ended in a violent quarrel;
Haemon rushes off, and the Chorus sings an ode, brief but striking
(78 iff.). He is in love, and it is the unconquerable power of love which
has caused his unfilial behaviour. But - and scholars sometimes notice
the obvious - the debate between father and son is not about love at
all: it is about politics, and about wisdom as manifested in the political
field. Perhaps, then, the Chorus is wrong to see the power of Eros at
work. This view has been put forward by an eminent scholar and has
won some acceptance.1 Indeed a Chorus need not be right. In what
way, if at all, is this Chorus wrong? A distinction needs to be made, (i)
Insofar as the Chorus brush aside everything else in the preceding
scene and choose to regard Haemon's behaviour as a wrong reaction
determined simply by the power of love, we can indeed say, if we
will, that they are making a * wrong diagnosis'. T h e just themselves
have their minds warped by thee to wrong for their ruin', 2 (av 8e /cat
SIKCLICDV OLSIKOVS <f>p€vas Trapaands inl AcojSa). This w o u l d certainly
seem to imply that, if Haemon had not been under the influence of
Eros, he would have accepted his father's will and that this would
have been right (SIKCLIOV), which of course by-passes the whole issue
of the Tightness of Creon's decision seen as a political and moral act.
(ii) But does this mean that Haemon was not influenced by this power?
Did he threaten, and then commit, suicide because he thought his
father was behaving as a bad king? 3 If he does not expatiate upon his
passion for Antigone, this was forbidden, though not so much by the
conventions of Greek tragedy 4 as by the requirements of the situa-
tion, by the fact that Haemon must speak words that will serve and
not frustrate his cause, as it would surely have been frustrated by a
1
K. von Fritz, 'Haimons Liebe zu Antigone', Philologus 89 (1934) 19—33, reprinted
in Antike und moderne Tragd'die (Berlin 1962) 227-40. Miiller (2) 171 f., while
admitting that the ode looks forward ironically to Haemon's suicide under the
power of Eros, accepts von Fritz's view that, where it stands, it presents an
incorrect explanation of his mental state.
2 791 (Jebb's translation).
3
For various views see Linforth (1961) 219 n. 3;H. Lloyd-Jones, Gnomon 34 (1962)
739f.; Gellie 43f.; Ronnet 84 and 153 (Haemon's world is broken by the scene,
indignation at his father's cruelty and insulting words count for more than 4une
blessure pour l'amoureux').
4
Hippodameia - a woman, and a woman in Sophocles, not one of the infamous
pornai of Euripides - speaks very frankly of her passion for Pelops (fr. 474 P).
Sophocles and the irrational 93
ation. 11 But we must wait for the end of the scene. Haemon's
self-control cannot stand the strain. Already at 751 he is thinking of
suicide, but it is the coarse brutality of Creon's threat, that Antigone
shall be executed before the eyes of her bridegroom, which evokes his
final outburst (762—4), determined, not by the rejection of his good
advice, but by the strength of his passion. The Coryphaeus (766f.)
refers to his anger (i£ opyrjs) and his grief (aXyrjoas), echoing the
language with which they greeted his entry (627ff). But it is Creon's
comment which is most significant: <f>pov€iTa) uti^ov rj /car' avSp9 Iwv
(768). Not easily translatable, it means, as Jebb rightly says: 'Let his
passion overpass the human limit.' And so it will, for a more than
human force is in control of his mind, the force of invincible Eros,
though this will not become clear until the scene at the cave (123 iff),
when he glares at his father with wild eyes, spits in his face, and draws
a sword on him 1 2 — the sword which he then plunges into his own
side and so attains a union with his bride in death.
Haemon is in love, but we are not meant to see him as a romantic
hero in the modern style. However much we may sympathize with
him, his passion is displayed not as a sympathetic or admirable trait,
but as a tragic fact - and the power of Eros as a dangerous and
potentially tragic element in human life. That is how the Greeks saw
sexual passion, as a madness sent by a god; and that is what the Chorus
sings — 'He who has you is mad' (o 8' €\o)v /xe/x^vev). Do we also say
that the man who resists the god is mad? Deianira thought so {Track.
446, 490-2). If Creon feared that his son was approaching in a state of
frenzy (Avoaalvcov, 633), Haemon left him with an accusation of
madness (fiaivrj, 765). This is a matter to which we must return. We
are not yet done with the Eros-ode.
As so often, the lyric style of an ode presents us with difficulties.
The Chorus goes on, in the second stanza, to sing something which, as
the text stands, is very puzzling, but which, in one way or another,
raises the question of the status of sexual passion in the moral gover-
nance of the world. About sexual attraction in its most seductive
11
Haemon takes advantage, as many a hard-pressed Greek must have done, of the
ambiguity of his participles (635, 638), which could be circumstantial or condi-
tional. Cf. C. Knapp, AJPh 37 (1916) 307.
12
1235: avrq> xoAct>0€i'?. 'His frantic impulse is instantly followed by violent
remorse' (Jebb), cf. Gellie 51 (and for the popular morality which might prompt
such remorse Dover, GPM 273 f ) . But is it not equally likely that he was angry
because of his failure to retaliate upon the author of Antigone's death?
Sophocles and the irrational 95
aspect they sing not only that it wins a victory but also, if the text is
sound, that it sits as assessor alongside the 'great laws' (jxeyaXot deafioi)
in their 'magistracies'. These laws must include — and in this context
must denote especially — the duty of a son towards his father; and it is
therefore puzzling that, after singing that Love warps the minds of the
just towards injustice, the Chorus should go on to imply that sexual
desire has an honourable place beside the laws. Naturally the text has
been suspected,13 but no convincing emendation is yet proposed.
Perhaps there is deliberate paradox, a sign of puzzlement on the part
of an often puzzled Chorus. But whether himeros sits with the thesmoi
or perverts the minds of just men to act against them or (paradoxi-
cally) both, the fact remains that Sophocles has raised the question; the
fact remains that Aphrodite is a goddess and is amachos, just as Eros is
anikatos; mother and son, and the desire which they manifest, are alike
invincible. That is how the Chorus sees it, thinking of Haemon.
'Sexual attraction in its most seductive aspect': j8Ae<£apa>v ifiepos
€v\€KTpovvvfjL<f>as\ A distinguished translator 14 has written that
must refer to the bride as well as to her admirer or the passage
13
The problem is in the context, not in the Greek, which is unexceptionable, nor in
the metre, the responsion o£ndp€8pos ev to ^uf i/xos being unwelcome rather than
fatal, rdiv fieydXwv . . . 0€<7/xcoi>is vouched for by the words of the Coryphaeus
(801), who feels that his tears are a breach of political duty akin to Haemon's
breach of filial piety. As to ndpeSpos, in Pindar Rhadamanthys and Themis, in
different contexts, zrendpcSpoi to Zeus. The term was used in Athenian public life
of the assessors who sat with various magistrates; and this makes irdpehpos ev
dpxais ring true, not least in a play so 'political' as Antigone, not least after the
scene between Creon and Haemon. The word occurs in Sophocles only here, but
at O.C. 1382 Dike is said by Oedipus to be {vvehpos Z-qvos dpxaiois VO/JLOIS, which
provides some kind of a parallel to the phrase under consideration. The word
suggests, if less than supreme authority, at least some power or influence; and it
suggests collaboration. Therein lies the difficulty. G. Miiller would read dpyos for
ndpeSpos, but strong objections are brought against this suggestion by B. M. W.
Knox, Gnomon 40 (1968) 758f., who adds: 'This surely is a case for the obelus.' He
may be right.
14
Lattimore, SPGTy${. in n. 34. That the eyes of the beloved area source of sexual
desire is virtually a commonplace of Greek poetry. It is examined by A. C.
Pearson in CR 23 (1910) 256f. See also W. S. Barrett on Eur. Hipp. 525-6 and
530-4 (for jScAos as 'amorous or love-provoking glance'); Miiller (1) 4iof., and (2)
178. The eyes of the beloved are a source of Ifiepos: so much is clear. But is this due
to an objective quality residing in them? (Liebreiz and Liebesverlangen being
covered by the same word tfiepos: so Miiller.) Or does the glance provoke desire
by revealing it? Different answers may apply in different cases. In Soph. fr. 474,
2f., there is desire in both parties, and the same may be implied at Aesch. Suppl.
g6 Sophocles and the irrational
suppose to have been in the minds of the singers). It is over the nature
of the offence that the parallel breaks down. Antigone was impri-
soned for disobeying a civil power which has become more and more
clearly seen as a tyranny, Lycurgus for opposing divine powers (while
Antigone claimed to be obeying such powers). A further point of
discrepancy might seem to be that, whereas Antigone's is a death-sen-
tence, Lycurgus, if imprisonment were all, would be mildly punished
for such an offence. But was imprisonment the full extent of his
punishment? 34 In Homer (//. 6.130) he was blinded by Zeus and did
not last long. How he was punished in Aeschylus we do not know,
but the manner must have been terrible. In Apollodorus (3.511) his
imprisonment on Mount Pangion was followed by his death, torn to
pieces by horses at the command of Dionysus. More significantly, it
was preceded by his madness, itself a punishment for rejecting the god
and his worshippers; and in his madness he killed his own son
Dryas. 35 There are vase-paintings which show him killing his son and
his wife. Hence it has been suggested 36 that he stands here in a relation
to Creon who caused the deaths of his son and his wife, the death of
his son being at this point particularly relevant, after Haemon's threat
of suicide. Still, the relevance might seem a little remote, the point to
be taken rather obscure, depending upon an unmentioned fact 37 in a
34
As Bowra, 105, rather strangely, seems to assume. Naturally the imprisonment is
stressed, because it is the point of contact with Danae - and with Antigone; and
naturally, if there is a relationship between Lycurgus and Creon, the death of
Lycurgus will not be stated, since Creon will not die.
35
H o w much in Apollodorus is Aeschylean? The abuse of the god and the persecu-
tion of his followers, certainly. The madness of Lycurgus and the killing of Dryas?
A return to sanity, when (like Agave) he realized what he had done? Apollodorus
says €O<jL)<f>p6v7)O€;in the Sophocles chorus we find aTrocrrafci and irreyvaj.
36
By Errandonea.
37
It may be observed that Lycurgus is not called by his o w n name, but 'son of
Dryas', and the grandfather may suggest the grandson.
Can there be any reference at this stage of the play to the death of Eurydice?
Unless (which we have no reason to suppose) the death of Creon's wife was a
staple feature, such a reference could not have been seized by an audience at the
time; and one is reluctant to suppose that Sophocles made points the effect of
which depended on a remote and improbable retrospection. This affects Erran-
donea's interpretation of the third story in the ode. Cleopatra and her two sons are
equated with Eurydice in the loss of both Haemon and Megareus. It is not so
certain that an audience might not have assumed the death of Megareus, the
references to which (1303, I3i2f.) are so elliptical that Sophocles would seem to
be taking some familiar story for granted. Creon had in some way been respon-
sible for the death o f Megareus; and one naturally thinks o f Menoiceus in the
Phoenissae. There Creon tries to save his son, which looks like a characteristic
Sophocles and the irrational 103
stop women who were inspired by the god. These women were
Maenades, and their god a god of madness; it was madness to oppose
him. Madness on the one side, madness on the other. N o w let us turn
back to Creon and Haemon. Haemon tells us that Creon is mad; then,
twenty-five lines later, the Chorus sings that the lover is mad: 6 8*
e\<ov fiefi-qvcv. Again, madness on both sides. 39
This surely reveals the pattern and the point of the first two stanzas
of the Fourth Stasimon - and the reason for the introduction in the
second stanza of a myth, at first sight not too apt, about Dionysus. 40
The close associations of Aphrodite and Dionysus in Greek art and
literature need no demonstration. 41 Normally they are associated in
contexts of relaxation and joy, but each has a double aspect. They are
both powers of overmastering emotion, both productive of mania,
with a potentiality of tragic disaster. Creon set himself against the
power of Aphrodite, as Lycurgus set himself against Dionysus. In
both cases it was an act of madness to oppose a god of madness and
brought its own punishment. Creon was punished through the mad-
ness of Haemon's love which drove him to suicide. Dryas did not
contribute to his own death, and this may be one reason why that
death is not expressly mentioned, though it seems likely that Sopho-
cles counted on his audience's knowing what Lycurgus did. However
that may be, it is the parallel between the offences of Creon and
Lycurgus that stands in the foreground; and in fact it is the offence of
Lycurgus that takes up the greater part of the stanza. In the end
Lycurgus came to recognize the god (eireyvw) and that he was mad to
assail him. So too Creon learns too late through the fruits of his
unwisdom (i26iff, esp. 1272). 42
43
Schol. Ap. Rhod. 2.178 ascribes to Sophocles (fr. 704 P) the story that Phineus was
blinded because he himself blinded the sons of Cleopatra TrtioBtis StajSoAafr
'ISaias TTJS avrcov fnjrpvlas. This is clearly not the version followed in the
Antigone chorus. Schol. Ant. 981 states that after the death of Cleopatra Phineus
married 'ISaiav rf)v Aaphavov, Kara 8e nvas Elhodiav n)v Kdh^iov aSeX^tfv, fjs KGLI
OLVTOS ZO^OKXTJS fjLvrjfjiovevei iv TvfjLTTavioTais' rjris ££ emfiovXrjs rwj>\o}aaaa KTX.
What follows may be the version envisaged in the chorus, i.e. Sophocles was
cross-referring to his own Tympanistae (see below). Does this mean that the
stepmother's name was Eidothea? Not necessarily, since /caret 8e nvas .. . dSeX^rfv
may be parenthetic, referring back to 'ISatav. We know so little of Eidothea that
it is hard to say whether her link with the royal family of Thebes could have had
any significance here. To some it has seemed that a princess from Asia Minor (as
Idaea was) might well have been attended by TVfinavtoTai in the service of the
Great Mother. The whole matter remains most doubtful.
106 Sophocles and the irrational
caves with the Storm-winds of her father, riding the air with them
over the steep mountain-range'. A pretty picture for its own sake,
perhaps. But can we not entertain the notion that, whereas Danae lost
the light of heaven, this daughter of the gods lost the freedom to ride
winged through heaven itself?48 The point is not to be pressed, but, if
the description of the Boread maiden implies her subsequent impri-
sonment, it may also imply her release and restitution by Boreas or
the Boreads - and the punishment of her persecutors (like the punish-
ment of Acrisius).
(ii) It is the strophe, not the antistrophe, that raises real difficulties
about relevance. We can say with Jebb that the sufferings of the
Phineidae are merely ancillary to the fate of Cleopatra, but that does
not seem quite how Sophocles has written it. Cleopatra does not enter
until the second line of the antistrophe; then there is the link with
Athens (self-justified in any Attic tragedy) and a working back
through the picture of the untrammelled Boread towards a relevance
to Antigone. The strophe, after the initial topographic link, is concen-
trated upon a brutal act and its pathetic consequences; and this theme
is carried on into the first lines of the antistrophe. One might add that
it implies the punishment of this act. When we look at the compressed
and striking language of the stanza, we must observe that the wound
is apaTov; the orbs of the eyes struck with the shuttle are
aXaoropoioiv — they call down vengeance. 49 Now, generally speak-
ing, in Greek tragedy a curse implies its fulfilment (which is a reason
among others for supposing that the version here is one in which the
Phineidae and their mother were avenged). An avenged crime might
have its relevance to Creon. Is the crime also relevant, as we have seen
the crime of Lycurgus to be? Here we are at a loss in our ignorance,
and particularly because we do not know the part played by Phineus
(who may have been innocent or associated with the guilt of his new
wife). In view of the relationship which I have sought to establish
between the Danae and Lycurgus stories, one would like to see in this
case also some futile opposition to the forces of emotion, but this is not
easily found, though it might be suggested that the poet now turns to
the other sin of Creon — not the sin against epws, but the sin against
<f>i\la? This was a crime within the family, against the family (particu-
larly if Phineus connived at it), and so appropriate to the curse and the
48
Lloyd-Jones uses the phrase €v ovpavw Imrevovoa (cf. Eur. Phoen. 212).
49
On the language of this passage see Goheen 7if.
108 Sophocles and the irrational
Fury. The next scene in the play will deal with the issue of burial — the
non-burial of Polynices, the burial alive of Antigone; and Creon will
be told by Teiresias (iO74ff.) that Erinyes are lying in wait for him.
That there is a relevance to the offence of Creon must be highly
probable, but we cannot be much more precise. 50
(iii) What, finally, of the role of divine powers in the economy of
the ode? It has long been recognized that the power of fate may be a
unifying theme, and something has been said about this already. But,
if there is the power of Fate, there are also specific gods at work.
Aphrodite is not mentioned in the Danae-stanza, but after the Third
Stasimon her agency can perhaps be taken for granted; Dionysus
controls the action against Lycurgus quite specifically. One expects
the third episode also to have its significant presiding deity. One
expects it, and one finds it. Ares stands in the forefront, his name
coming immediately after the geographical introduction of the scene
and before the statement of the action: lv* ayxinoXis "Aprjs \ Siaaolai
0iv€t8ats ctScv dparov ZXKOS. Ares is appropriate, because he is a
Thracian god, and because the action is cruel (though one might say
that a blinding for private motives is not obviously appropriate to
Ares). 'He saw the wound dealt', writesJebb, 'i.e. it was a deed such as
he loves to see.1 But Jebb also says that, when Ares is given the epithet
ayxirroAis, there may be a special reference to some local shrine. One
would certainly like to suppose that the connection of Ares with the
action was rather closer than Jebb's quoted comment assumes. Her-
kenrath,51 among many unprofitable speculations about the Tym-
panistae (which he believed to lie behind the Antigone passage),
suggested that the shrine of Ares may actually have been the scene of
the atrocity. The suggestion is attractive, but cannot be proved. Ares I
believe to be a clue, but a clue which we may never be in a position to
follow up.
50
In lyrics such as these there may be many suggestions which appear and disappear
like will-o'-the-wisps deluding the critic. Take the theme of blindness, for
instance. At the end of the ode there enters a blind prophet. Phineus was,
traditionally, a blind prophet. Then Phineus was, in this version of the story,
punished with blindness? This could hardly be asserted! Oedipus blinded himself,
in a context of curses. References to the self-blinding are, however, absent from
the play, apart from 49-52. Are we meant to think of him, putting apaxBivrotv
(975) alongside apd£as (52)? It is more than doubtful. If Idaea, instead of killing
her stepsons, blinded them and left them to die, this could have been a futile
precaution against blood-guilt, like Creon's (775f.).
51
E. Herkenrath, Bert. Phil.-Woch. 1930, 331.
Sophocles and the irrational 109
This is because we have lost the vital play, and because we know so
little about the Thracian Ares. Sophocles doubtless knew7 more. What
little we know is summarized by the sober Farnell: 52 'a war-god, who
sometimes assumed the form of a wolf, who gave oracles, who
delighted in human sacrifices, and who at times died and was buried;
and such a god might have been a double of Dionysus' (my italics). Jane
Harrison (Proleg. 375ff.) has more to say about the relationship
between Ares and Dionysus, whom she sees as Thracian rivals.
Herodotus 53 tells us that the gods principally worshipped in Thrace
were Ares, Dionysus, and Artemis. The Thracian Artemis is likely to
have resembled the Great Mother rather than the virgin goddess, and
there is a prima facie likelihood that all these Thracian cults were
orgiastic. The interest of this for our investigation lies in the possibi-
lity that in the background of the Phineus story lay an orgiastic cult. I
cannot refrain from referring once again to the Tympanistae of
Sophocles, which certainly seems to have dealt with the story of
Phineus and Cleopatra, and which had as its chorus players on the
tambourine. But in whose cult they played we do not know.
This is all very vague and tantalizing. I merely insist that we should
not overlook the role of Ares as the presiding deity of the third
episode of this choral ode. Aphrodite, Dionysus, Ares. Aphrodite the
companion of Dionysus in joy and madness; Ares the lover of
Aphrodite; Dionysus and Ares rival or brother gods in Thrace. Yet all
three having links with Thebes. Antigone, as she leaves the stage, calls
to witness the city of her fathers and the princes of Thebes who form
the Chorus, but also (rather oddly) 'the gods our forebears' (deol
TTpoyeveis, 938). 'She thinks esp.', I quote from Jebb (and I am glad
these are his suggestions, not mine), 'of Ares and Aphrodite, the
parents of Harmonia, wife of Cadmus . . . Dionysus, the son of
"Cadmean" Semele (1115), is another of the deities meant.' If we are
looking for intelligible structure in the ode which immediately fol-
lows, it is worth considering whether it was not, for one thing, built
around these three great gods who played a role in the story of the
Theban royal house — gods whose nature was not irrelevant to the
disastrous action of our play. There is still, perhaps, something to be
said about Dionysus, though it is said with considerable reserve.
52
Cults of the Creek states v 400.
53
v. 7.
i io Sophocles and the irrational
54
But cf. Segal, Arion 3 (1964) 2.58, who, writing of Antigone, speaks of 'the
increasing prominence of Eros and Dionysus, the mythical embodiments of the
least rational or "controllable" elements in human experience, in the odes of the
second half of the play'.
55
Sophokles 86.
56
Cf. Pearson 1 3.
Sophocles and the irrational 111
clean lyric, is hard to judge, not least when he is writing a hymn and
using the themes and language proper to a hymn. 6 0 Nevertheless the
attempt must be made. It is, says Jebb, 'a strain full of gladness', akin
to other songs of joy in Oedipus Tyrannus, Ajax, and Trachiniae. But
Sophocles who often seems to be repeating from play to play devices
which he has found effective is always found on examination to be
making subtle variations. How joyful in fact does this song turn out to
be, when we examine it? And first it must be observed that Dionysus
is not (as in the Parodos) summoned to preside over a joyful celeb-
ration but to come 'with purifying foot', to come as healer. To this
expression we shall return, for it is crucial.
The first stanza opens with the vocative noXvcovvixe: Dionysus is a
god of many names, of many cults, of many aspects. Thebes, natur-
ally, comes first and last, but there is mention of Italy (or Ikaria?)61
and of Eleusis, which links him with Athens - but also with the realm
of the dead. In this stanza there is no light or colour or time of day;
there is no movement - Dionysus is here, is there, he dwells in Thebes,
mother-city of Bacchanals. In the second stanza movement begins.
The Corycian nymphs of Bacchus move in their dance. The god is
seen in Delphi; it is night, and there could be something sinister in the
murky light of the torches (arepoiff Xiyvvs).62 Then the god himself is
on the move, from the hills of Nysa with their ivy and vines; he is on
the way to Thebes, and we sense his approach, which could be
frightening. But he honours Thebes above all cities - he and his
mother whom the lightning slew. So the Chorus pray him to come
'with purifying foot', over the height of Parnassus or the Groaning
Strait. If he is coming from the East, from Nysa, he is nearer now, at
the Euripus: he is very near. With the fourth stanza, the appeal reaches
its climax. He is hailed as leader of the dance of the stars, of the stars
which breathe fire (IOJ nvp TTVCLOVTCDV \opay* aaTpwv). The editors
have no difficulty in illustrating the association of Dionysus with the
dance of the stars, perhaps a feature of Eleusinian ritual. But what an
60
Cf. A. E. Harvey, CQ n.s. 7 (1957) 215 n. 2.
61
See the editions ofJebb and Miiller. The former has a well-balanced discussion of
this difficult issue, on which I express no opinion.
62
Cf. Miiller's edition p. 246. His analysis (244-50) of the thought and diction of the
Fifth Stasimon has much in common with my own, but I cannot follow him
when he finds a relevance to Antigone first in the fate of Semele and then in the
Maenads of 1150. He is probably right, however, to stress the chthonian associ-
ations of Dionysus as a feature of the ode.
H4 Sophocles and the irrational
impulse' (fiaivofieva £vv opfia fiaKX€v<ov); and this is the first, but by
no means the last, reference to madness in the play. If this were a
common metaphor in Sophocles, we should make nothing of it, but
Jebb writes that *this is the only place where Sophocles connects evil
frenzy with the name of a god whom this same Ode invokes (154)'.
The statement is correct, except insofar as it may ignore some of the
implications of 955ff. It may not be too rash, then, to suggest that he
may have used the metaphor with deliberation and in the knowledge
of all that would be said and shown about Dionysus in the remainder
of the play and, above all, as a qualification of the aspect in which the
god is seen at the end of the Parodos. The two references are in strong
contrast, one in a context of war, the other of peaceful celebration,
but they stand close to one another and between them embrace the
last strophe and antistrophe. If, as may well be possible in lyric poetry,
the first reference sheds an influence on the second, the innocence of
'the shaker' may be contaminated with the violence of Ares (139) and
the whole phrase (O-qfias eXeXixOwv BaKx^os &PX01) t a ^ e o n a sinister
import. An ode which began with the rays of the sun, the bright light
of victory, ends in the darkness of night. If it ends with war forgotten
and the victory celebrated in joy, the sequel, thanks to Creon, will be
far different. It could be that the closing words of the Parodos are a
more appropriate preparation than one had supposed for the entry of
a Creon whose emotionalism precipitates new disaster.
CHAPTER SIX
would not seek to maintain. Yet, in the comparisons which have been
made between the two plays, it is Antigone who finds herself com-
pared to Ajax, while Creon finds his counterpart in the Atridae. 3 Let
us look first at Creon's claims to be the major character.
These claims are prima facie strong. There is the sheer length of his
part, far longer than Antigone's. Antigone opens the play with
Ismene,4 but after the Parodos until the end of the play Creon is
seldom 'off the stage*. This is more than a cliche, for — and this is
unusual — he is certainly present during two of the choral odes, and
perhaps during a third,5 which means that he is visible to the audience
for a longer continuous period and for a greater total length of time
than could be paralleled of one who is not central to his play.
Moreover — and this is not unconnected with his presence on the
stage - it is characteristic of choral odes in Antigone that, by a variety
of tragic irony, they have a relevance to him which is not in the minds
of the singers.6 The closing scene is his, and the closing comment of
the chorus-leader is evoked by his fate and derives its truth from his
character and actions. (This comment at least, whatever may be true
of some, is not a set of trivial commonplaces uttered while the
audience relax and rustle.)
'Wisdom (TO <f>pov€iv) is by far the first foundation of happiness
(tvhaiiLovlas). Yes, and it is essential never to lack piety towards the
gods. Great words of over-proud men, paying the penalty of great
blows, teach wisdom in old age.' Creon has spoken proud words;
Creon has suffered great blows; Creon has learnt, too late, that he
lacked wisdom. The theme is Aeschylean: pathei mathos. Unlike many
Aeschylean figures, Creon learns in his own person, for he remains
alive, coming on stage like Xerxes at the end of the play a broken
man. There is much in the language and tone of the Exodos to remind
us of the Persae: the remorse of the hero, the recriminations of the
Chorus. And if Creon seems to have learnt more than Xerxes, there
are limits to what he has come to understand.7 That Antigone is full of
3
Torrance 297f.
4
In the four plays which have one obviously central character (Ajax, O.T., EL,
O.C.) that character is introduced before the Parodos. In Track. Deianira shares the
interest with Heracles, in Phil. Neoptolemus with Philoctetes. But we have too few
plays to generalize about Sophoclean practice.
5
See p. 136 n. 58 below.
6
On choral irony see Miiller (1) passim; Bowra U 4 f ; Coleman 5.
7
See p. 164 below.
Creon and Antigone 119
claims of the family and the claims of the city. 10 And at first it seems as
though Sophocles is going to develop his play upon the lines of this
conflict, when Antigone is shown in the Prologos narrowly concen-
trated upon the family and utterly indifferent to the city, when
Creon, in his speech after the Parodos (a position of great importance
in a Greek play), is given his case as spokesman of the polis, saying
things, for instance about the subordination of personal attachments
to the public interest, to which an Athenian audience might well
respond favourably.
Aeschylus had written a trilogy on the Theban legend, of which we
possess Septem only. It must have been in the mind of Sophocles and,
for him and many of his audience, may have had the character of a
standard version of the story. In the trilogy the fates of genos and polis
were dangerously intertwined and the salvation of the polis depended
on the destruction of the genos.l * In Antigone Sophocles dramatizes
the final - and non-Aeschylean - phase of the destruction of the
genos, in which a member of the genos sets herself up against the
polis - and is destroyed. Does she endanger it, and does her destruc-
tion save it? So Creon thinks, or purports to think. And he is proved
wrong. As we shall see, Sophocles progressively undercuts the moral
stance of Creon, showing him up not only as a tyrant but, despite all
his gnomic utterance, as an emotional creature compounded of fear
and ambition; deserted by Haemon, condemned by Teiresias, he is
ultimately punished through his family. His case is whittled away and
with it the play that Sophocles might have written but preferred not
to write.
The issue on which the action turns is burial and the refusal of
burial. Not to bury is ugly; it is decreed, as in Ajax, by a man who
turns out to be tyrannically minded. Therefore Antigone was right.
But this oversimplifies the issue as presented in the course of the play.
One critic writes: 12 'It is not . . . evidently repugnant to leave the
corpse of a polemios unburied: what is at issue in Ajax and Antigone is
the status of the dead man.' To reply that an action described as
Sophocles has described it is inherently repugnant does not settle the
10
On this d. (most recently) Vickers 544.
11
Cf. YCS 25 (1977) 1-45-
12
O. Taplin, in a review of Gellie, CR 26 (1976) 119 Cf. W. R. Connor, The new
politicians ojfifth-century Athens (Princeton, N J. 1971) 51: i t would be perfectly all
right to leave an enemy unburied, but kin, Polynices, must not be treated in this
horrible way.'
Creon and Antigone 121
philoi. He, not Antigone, ends the play as a 'living corpse' (1167),
longing for death but forced to remain in the visible world of life
But the city too has friends and enemies? The polis means nothing to
her, nor does Creon - the 'good' Creon as she sarcastically calls
him. 4 3 There are philoi and echthroi, in relation to the family, and this
is a polar opposition which admits of no intermediate degrees; and
Ismene, when she withholds her support, passes immediately and
automatically into the opposite camp (45f., 69ff., 86f., 93f.).
Friends and enemies. The antithesis figures prominently in several
of the extant plays of Sophocles. In Ajax it is a fairly straightforward
matter within a military context; in Antigone the poet exploits ambi-
guities inherent in the Greek usage ofphilos. The Homeric usage is at
first sight puzzling, but can be explained 44 in the light of early heroic
society: this is a word which can be applied to whatever the hero can
rely upon in a hostile world, whether it be his family, his friends, his
dependants, or his own stout heart. Many later reactions stem from
this, including the ubiquitous maxim that one should 'do good to
one's friends and harm to one's enemies'. A special - and specially
close - set of philoi are kinsmen; and the word often denotes precisely
that, not least in tragedy (and so in Aristotle's Poetics). Whether
because the family — and in a lesser degree any bond of loyalty and
mutual dependence - generates affection, or for whatever reason,
philos the adjective commonly - and philein the verb virtually
always - connote some degree of love (or liking); the words are
common of lovers and philon comes to be used of anything of which
you are fond. In Antigone, it would seem, two ambiguities come into
play: there is philia as kinship, and there is philia as a socio-political
relationship; there is philia as kinship, and philia as affection. Both are
involved in the question of burial.
Of the brothers one is the 'friend' and one the 'enemy' of the state,
whereas, in relation to one another, they are simultaneously philoi and
echthroi — a fact to which, as we shall see, Creon forces Antigone to
pay attention. 45 For Creon himself, just as burial is a civic matter - a
reward given to those who deserve it, so philoi are made not
born - and a son is a utility (though that is not how he feels when he
loses Haemon). He says he will execute Antigone for her disobedience
43
Linforth (1961) 191. The sarcasm is not quite as it might appear to us: she is asking
what right Creon has to be considered agathos when he treats a member of the
family thus. But see also n. 25 above.
44
Cf. A. W. H. Adkins, CQ 13 (1963) 301T.
45
Seep. 131 below.
130 Creon and Antigone
'whether she is a sister's child or nearer in blood than the whole circle
of Zeus Herkeios' (486f.). Only those who serve the polis will he
recognize as philoi. Equally straightforward is the distinction which
Antigone draws within the family context. 'Friends' promote, 'ene-
mies' attack, the interests of the family, which include the right of due
burial for its members at the hands of their kin. When Ismene refuses
to participate, thereby she acquires the status of an echthros. Forced by
her to argue for a case beyond argument, Antigone maintains that to
bury her brother — and so to die — is not only kalon (72), not only in
accordance with a social standard, but holy, because she will be
honouring what is held in honour by the gods (76f). And she means
the gods of the nether world who demand this tribute. For her it is all
one complex emotion which hardly distinguishes as occupants of the
nether world between her family dead and the gods in whose protec-
tion they lie and she herself will lie.
It is a strong emotion, and the words of'hatred' which she addresses
to Ismene are strongly emotional. And indeed what makes a martyr
die for a cause and a principle is no cool calculation. But before we see
Antigone in this light, there is something which makes us wonder, the
note of a personal passion. Polynices was her brother (21, 45), her
kin — and so a philos. The word can, but need not, connote deep
affection; the superlative philtatos must surely do so. And Polynices,
for whom she will heap a tomb (8of), is her dearest brother. It can be
no accident that, when she speaks of her state in death (73), she is made
to use language - 'I shall lie with him, dear one with dear one' (<f>iXrj
/Lt€T* avrov Kelaofiai, <f>l\ov fjL€Ta) — appropriate to lovers. Who can
lay his hand on his heart and assert with confidence that Sophocles
did — or did not — wish to suggest a special relationship of deep
affection between Antigone and Polynices? (In the end she lies in
death with Haemon.)
If Antigone is difficult, ideas are easier. The complexities of philia
and echthra are exposed in the Prologos, to be taken up again and
examined in a vitally important dialogue later in the play. Antigone
re-enters in charge of the Guard. Before she speaks, we see and hear
her through his eyes and ears, wailing shrilly at the sight of the bare
corpse, calling down terrible curses upon those who had done the
deed (423-8). The sequence which follows is complex. The Guard
tells his story and goes, leaving Antigone and Creon in confrontation.
They make their long speeches. Creon sends for Ismene. Before she is
Creon and Antigone 131
46
Knox HT 95ff. At 452 the text is uncertain. Dain-Mazon put a strong case for
Vollgraf s emendation of of to ov: 'rien n'est plus frappant que le ton de ces
delegations energiques*. We might compare the piling-up of negatives in 4ff.
47
The repetitions here (noted by Levy 141) characterize Antigone's passionate
rhetoric: xipSos (462, 464); aAyos, rjXyovv, dXyvvofiai (466-8, with ABA arrange-
ment); fuhpa, fjLwpw, ficoplav (469^. Cf. the preceding note.
132 Creon and Antigone
only in the context of death that Antigone's heroic nature can fulfil
itself.
When Creon insists that enmity continues even in death, Antigone
replies that it is not her nature to join in hatred but in love (OVTOL
ovvexOeiv dAAa GVfMfriXeiv €<f>vv, 523), which is perhaps the most
famous line in this famous play - and much has been built upon it. Its
primary meaning is beyond doubt; it arises in the context set out in
the preceding paragraphs. Creon has faced Antigo le with an appar-
ent dilemma: if the brothers were kinsmen (philoi), they were also
bitter enemies who had killed one another. She says, then, that she
will not participate in their enmity (now terminated by death) but in
their philia, their blood-relationship (which makes equal demands
upon her). But philia is not simply a matter of status - not in this play.
If philos need not imply a deep personal emotion, the verb sumphilein
can hardly fail to do so. Moreover, Antigone says ephun; and, if phunai
can often be little more than a synonym for einai, it is hardly to be
believed that here she is not making a statement about what is - or
what she thinks to be — her nature, her phusis. She claims, it would
seem, to be a 'loving' and not a 'hating' character. Are we back with
that Antigone inzuccherata so justly deplored by Perrotta? It will be
best to return to this issue when we have looked at Ismene.
Creon sends for Ismene. We did not expect to see her again, or
perhaps to hear of her, least of all an Ismene so different from that
embodiment of sophrosune we met in the Prologos; and now we learn
that she is raving and out of her senses (Xvoowoav . . . ouS' in-qfioAov
<f>pevd)v, 492). There are few things more irritating in the criticism of
Greek tragedy than the prim disparagement of Ismene we sometimes
read - as though we were all heroes. But we must understand her
rightly in this scene. It would still be touching, if she came before us
full of remorse for a missed chance, longing to retrieve her moral
position, but showing a pathetic incompetence in the pursuit of
martyrdom. But that is not, I think, how Sophocles presents her.
Ismene never wished - and does not now wish — to be a hero. She
never approved - and does not now approve - Antigone's choice to
die. When Antigone says (555): 'You chose to live, I to die', she
replies: 'But not at least without my words being spoken.' Those
words — her recognition at once of the duty to bury (99) and of the
impossibility of carrying it out (79, 92) - she does not now take back.
By her transparent subterfuge (536f), she does not seek death for the
134 Creon and Antigone
sake of the dead, but of the living now condemned to die. Of the dead
she speaks three words at the end of a sentence (545), but the whole
stress of the dialogue is upon Antigone and the desire to share her fate:
she loves her sister and cannot bear to live without her (548, 566).
Selfish Ismene! Unheroic, ignoble Ismene!
The theme of sharing is important. 51 koinon is the first full word
heard in the play, as Antigone addresses Ismene with the barely
translatable c5 KOIVOV auraScA^ov 'Iaiirjvrjs /capa (1), but, when her
sister refuses to support her, she regards their koinonia as at an end. The
notion, not unnaturally, returns in the present scene. 'You were not
willing, and I did not make you my partner' (539); no more shall she
share her death (546). This is her answer to Ismene's repeated preposi-
tion (three times in nine lines — ^u/x/Lieriaxco, ^vfinXovv, £vv aoi); and
Ismene replies by asking what life is hers, if she is bereft of Anti-
gone. 52 The contrast between the two sisters, though bound up with
the concept of heroism, does not reduce to a crude antithesis. Ismene
does not share Antigone's obsession with death and the world of the
dead, her feeling that that is where she already belongs and where the
family feuds can be resolved. She will not face death for this, but seeks
it, when she finds life is not worth living without the sister she loves.
This kind of love — and this kind of death — Antigone rejects: coming
at the wrong time and in the wrong way, they do not arise out of the
complex of emotions by which she has herself been actuated - her
feelings about the family, about burial, about death.
It is sometimes said that, when Antigone treats Ismene so harshly in
this scene, she is trying to save her from Creon. 53 But this is clearly
wrong. In the Prologos, Ismene declines to help, declines (we may
say) to collaborate in the imposition of philia upon a divided family;
whereupon Antigone excludes her from the ranks ofphiloi; she does
not merely withhold her love or speak in tones of cold contempt, but
uses words of enmity, of hating (86, 93f). Ismene is in Creon's camp,
and there, for Antigone, she remains. 'Ask Creon; for you are on his
51
W. Jakel, 'Die Exposition in der Antigone des Sophokles', Gymn. 68 (1961)
34—55, provides a useful study of personal pronouns in the Prologos (pp. 37-40).
He points out (p. 40) that, by contrast with Antigone's koinon, Ismene's first word
is the stressed emoi; and that her first dual is at 50 (in a context of deterrence).
52
On the text of 55of. see BICS 26 (1979) 6f., where I suggest that two lines have
fallen out between 550 and 551.
53
But see Perrotta 102, Kells, BICS 55, as against Adams 51 and (sadly) Knox, HT
65.
Creon and Antigone 135
side.' 54 The line (549) is vicious and sincere. What, then, do we make
of Antigone's claim which immediately preceded the entry of
Ismene — the claim that it was in her nature to share in love but not in
hatred?
That, in the immediate context, an Antigone who acts out of deep
affection has the moral advantage over a Creon who pursues enmity
beyond the grave is a fact that need not be questioned. Can we be so
sure, however, that there is no irony in her claim? It is not an accident,
surely, that this claim is immediately followed by a scene in which,
with hostile language, she rejects the offer of a loving Ismene to share
her death - no accident that this scene mirrors the Prologos in which
she excluded her sister from the family, assuming the hostility of
Polynices towards her and sharing it (93f.). 55 Is this not sunechthein? If
there is irony here, it is far from superficial: it is tragic, and bound up
with the whole tragedy of Sophoclean heroism. Antigone follows the
old traditional code, with its polarity of friendship and enmity, an
opposition which cannot be bridged, for where there is friendship
there will be enmity also, and the stronger the philia the stronger the
echthra. Antigone may believe that it is her nature to share in love, but
she is caught up in a code which equally demands hatred. We think of
Ajax, of Philoctetes, of the Colonean Oedipus equally strong in love
and in hate. It is only non-heroic characters who are free from this
tragic antithesis.
It is Ismene who is all affection. Observe, then, the extraordinary
54
On KTjSe^iwv see Knox, HT 176 n. 7: 'The word in Antigone's taunt suggests that
Ismene devotes to Creon the "care" she should have shown for Polynices.'
55
At this point I should like to return to line 10 (npos TOVS </>L\OVS arcixovra TOJV
ixOpatv KaKa)y which admits of more than one interpretation. It is discussed at
length by Jebb, Knox, and Kells, all of w h o m take the view that TWV ixdpwv
KaKci, means 'ills appropriate to foes', i.e. public enemies. This could be right, but
I feel increasingly doubtful about it. (i) Admittedly, the prose-distinction between
ixOpol and noXefiioi is not always maintained in tragedy, and ixBpot is in fact used
by Creon in this play of public enemies, (ii) It can also be admitted that Antigone
may have been indifferent to the non-burial of non-kinsmen. And this yields a
dramatic - and ironic - point, (iii) Nevertheless, it is just because Antigone is
kinship-oriented that one doubts whether she spared a moment's thought for the
enemies of the state. It is because of the basic structural importance of ring-com-
position in Sophocles that one is reluctant to separate the philosjechthros antithesis
in 10 from the three words of enmity directed against Ismene at the end of the
scene (86, 93f.). Ismene is now in Creon's camp; Creon is the enemy; the ills are
coming from the echthroi of the family. N o other 'enemies' enter into the vision of
Antigone. I incline therefore to return to L. Campbell's view, cf. Paral. 3.
136 Creon and Antigone
word that Creon used (492) to describe her state of mind: she was in
frenzy (Xvaaataav) and not in control of her phrenes. To this state she
was reduced by the love of sister for sister. 56 The same word (slightly
varied) recurs at the entry of Haemon. Can it be that he is in frenzy
(Xvaaaivwv, 633) against his father? And in the end we find him acting
as the mad lover of whom the Chorus sang (790). The theme of sexual
love has been treated in an earlier chapter, and we shall have to return
to it before long. It is introduced by Ismene. Now, perhaps, we can
see why she has been brought back into the play. It is not only, by
contrast, to resume her function of exploring the nature of her sister's
heroism, but it is wholly appropriate that she, whose life is wrecked
by that heroism, standing as she does in a relationship of deep personal
affection towards Antigone, should be the one to tell us of the
relationship of Haemon to Antigone. The next scene is Haemon's
scene. The next shows us an Antigone who has rejected Ismene's love
going to her death left, by Sophocles, in ignorance that he has
championed her cause and quarrelled with his father.
56
With the importance of her role goes a degree o f characterization which is missed
not only (naturally) by Tycho Wilamowitz but also by E. Fraenkel who quotes
with approval the former's judgement that Ismene is 'gar nicht was wir einen
Charakter nennen' (see H. Lloyd-Jones, CQ 22 (1972) 215 n. 2). 49if. alone should
guard us against under-estimating the individuality o f Ismene.
57
O n the motivation of Creon's change of mind see Bowra 103; Letters 173; Kitto,
FMD 166; Knox, HT 72.
58
Creon is not present during the First Stasimon, but at that time the Chorus does
not k n o w that Antigone is the offender. Clearly, he is present during the Second
and Fourth. Is he also present during the Third? In which case he is also present
during the ensuing kommos. Kitto FMD 1671!. says yes. The matter is not easily
decided. His entry, unheralded, at 883 to cut short lamentations seems adequately
paralleled by O.C. 1751 (cf. E. Fraenkel, Zu den Phoenissen des Euripides (Munich
1963) 75). One might prefer that Antigone should have her kommos alone with the
Creon and Antigone 137
speech. There are exchanges in anapaests before she leaves the stage
for the last time. Whereupon the Chorus sing their Fourth Stasimon.
There are difficulties of many kinds, not least that we seem to be
seeing a new Antigone. Was Creon right about the effect of the
approach of death even upon the bold?
The relative shortness of Antigone's part has been remarked. She
appears in three scenes. There is the Prologos which, though impor-
tant, is not very long. There is the long scene we have just been
examining in which we see her with Creon and then with Ismene.
The kommos and its sequel (801—943) contain a very substantial
portion of the total role of Antigone. It may not be very likely, then,
that Sophocles has abandoned his portrayal of the heroine in order to
play a brilliant variation upon a conventional theme and situa-
tion - the virgin bride of Death. 59 The scene must be studied with
some care. There are difficulties, not least in understanding the
reactions of the Chorus, about whom a few words must now be said.
Choruses in Sophocles are characterized, within appropriate limits
(which vary from play to play), and the characterization is in general
consistent. Choral odes have such structural and thematic importance
that the connections between the song and the character of the singers
may become rather tenuous, if it never completely disappears, but the
attitudes and sympathies of a Chorus tend to be straightforward and
readily explicable by their role. In Antigone, the attitude of the Chorus
towards Creon veers from ostensible, if not unreserved, 60 support to
a degree of censure which might seem to qualify them as the least
helpful Chorus in Greek tragedy. We can say, if we like, that they
only wait for the moral support of Teiresias to voice misgivings that
they have long felt (and of which indeed there have been pale hints). It
is, however, in relation to Antigone that it becomes important - and
Chorus, but this is a rather subjective point. On the other hand, if (as has been
argued above, pp. 961".) the ode, though directed towards Haemon, bears on
Creon, his presence while it is sung would help to bring this out, just as his
presence during the other two stasima directs the attention of the audience to the
irony inherent in the words of the Chorus.
59
Which is what worried Perrotta n$ff.
60
At 21 iff. they could hardly be more non-committal. Cf. Linforth (1961) 190; B.
Alexanderson, 'Die Stellung des Chors in der Antigone', Eranos 64 (1966) 88.
Alexanderson's general conclusion (op. cit. 103) is, however, too sweeping: 'Der
Chor hat tatsachlich zwei Gesichter. Bis auf Teiresias' Erscheinen ist der Chor eine
Person im Drama. Nach Teiresias wird der Chor von der Handlung losgelost und
wird ein Sprachrohr des Dichters.'
138 Creon and Antigone
death and she laments. She calls her hearers to witness; she sings that
this is her last journey, her last sight of the sunlight; she deplores that
she will die unwedded, that she will be the bride of Acheron.
Poignant though the words may be, the themes are conventional for
one in her situation. Has Sophocles forgotten his Antigone in the
desire to write a pathetic scene? Or are we to remember the words of
Creon that even the bold flee from the close approach of death? Is
Antigone's nerve broken? Does Perrotta's 'terrible heroine' turn out
to be a vulnerable girl? Certainly to deny her the right to quail before
death is to press consistency with a more than Aristotelian insensibi-
lity. But Sophocles had a finer art than simply to show the martyr
shrinking from theflames.One thing has changed since Antigone left
the scene: now she knows the manner of her death. The first half of
the kommos - Antigone's first three stanzas and the intervening ana-
paests of the Chorus — is dominated by the theme of living death.
The thought of being buried alive has always had a peculiar horror
for the human mind. I am not, however, suggesting that it is simply
this natural revulsion which accounts for Antigone's change of mood.
Let us see how it works out. In her first stanza, along with other
themes, she sings that Hades is dragging her 'alive' (£,a)oav) to the
shore of Acheron. The tone of the Chorus' reply has been much
debated. But, so soon after the tears of 803, it can hardly be hostile or
sarcastic (however much they disapprove). 63 It seems as though they
have beaten around for some consolation to offer and hit upon the
exceptional mode of her death as a source of fame: alone of mortals
she will go down alive (£o>(7a) to Hades. It is the living death that turns
the thoughts of Antigone towards Niobe. 64 Hers was a dreadful way
63
In a long note Knox, HT i76f., sets out the problem well. He suggests reading
OVKOVV at 817: she is not icActv^, she has no Ziratvos (or funeral eulogy) as she would
have had if she had died of disease or in war. This is ingenious, but it will hardly
do, since it gets the feeling of the ovre . . . ovre passage quite wrong (especially in
view of <f>divdoiv). 'If only you had died of a wasting disease . . .' Can that be the
implication? Surely ovrc... ovre must indicate aspects advantageous to Antigone.
Interpreters have in general underestimated the sheer embarrassment of the
Chorus during this kommos.
64
At 8231!. I see no trace of the notion of Niobe as a great sinner (contr. Muller (2)
186) - neither there nor in the response of the Chorus. This lyric stanza is of great
subtlety. Jebb argues effectively for Musgrave's change of o^pw to o/xj3poi. It
goes something like this: 'What takes the place for her of tears, as a wasting
expression of her grief, is never-failing rain and snow; what is wetted by her tears
is not a human body, but rocks'. The whole comparison is embraced between
?: rain for tears, rock for body.
140 Creon and Antigone
65
Knox, HT66.
66
Fortunately, the corruption of the text (reconstruction is uncertain) does not
obscure the general sense. From 806 onwards words of life and death are insistent:
it is only at this point (a dividing point in the kommos) that the basis of Antigone's
emotion is made specifically clear. At 8ioff. she sings that Hades is dragging her
'alive' to the shore of Acheron, and this is already suggestive, since in the normal
case a human-being is dead when he leaves the world of the living and during the
transit to Acheron. The suggestion of 82if. is similar, though for the Chorus the
stress may be on autonomos. But to Antigone it suggests comparison with Niobe,
still in the world of the living, yet turned to stone, yet still weeping. At 838, the
very phrase of the Chorus, with its temporal distinction between life and death
(£a>aai> KCU ITTCITCL davovoav), may remind Antigone that this distinction will be
obliterated in her living tomb, and this may contribute to the bitterness of her
rejoinder.
Creon and Antigone 141
living death that she takes (wrongly) for malice. She addresses the
Chorus: in the dramatic case there is no one else for her to address.
The way in which she addresses them is surely rather striking. They
are citizens of her native-land (806). They are the polis, embodied in
its wealthy land-owners (843f., a> noXis, c5 TTOACCO? 7ToXvKTrjfiov€s
avSpes). It is striking, for Antigone had seemed to care nothing for the
polis. (So Creon had seemed to care nothing for kinship, but is broken
by the loss of his kin.) In her last hour she calls upon the polis to bear
witness, but the way in which she is made to address the Elders who
represent it is not the most obvious: she calls them 'men of the city,
men rich in possessions'. Which could be a sign to the audience that
these are 'establishment' figures - later she will call them 'princes of
Thebes' (940). But how does Antigone think of them? They are the
wealthy, the heads of great aristocratic families (like her own), who
should be sensitive to the claims of philoi, to the traditional rites of
burial, to the immemorial nomoi. To them she looks, but looks, as she
feels, in vain.
The Chorus has been called to witness. What can they say? What
can they be thinking - these religious old men with their traditional
background — of the potainios taphos and, for that matter, of the
non-burial of Polynices? On these matters they cannot speak frankly.
N o w in song 67 they try to give an explanation, which might also be
regarded as a justification, of what is happening to Antigone. The
thought and language are Aeschylean. Antigone had called them to
witness under what sort of nomoi she was suffering: they offer an
explanation in terms of traditional religion. It falls into two parts.
Taking a word from Creon (580, 752), they sing of her thrasos, her
extremity of thrasos; and that in her criminal boldness she has run up
against the lofty altar of Justice (ALKCLS).68 Therefore, it is implied,
67
The change from anapaests to lyrics marks a transition. Hitherto the Chorus have
been responding, within their emotional limits, to the predicament of Antigone;
now they attempt a 'theological' interpretation and an Aeschylean mode of
thought, to which, since syncopated iambics are so frequent in the 'theological'
choruses ofOresteia, their metre is perhaps appropriate.
68
853ff. The question here is whether Antigone is to be conceived as suppliant at the
altar of Justice or as offending against it (for which the salient parallel is Aesch.
Agam. 383). For the former view see Lesky, Hermes 80 (1952) 92 and TD 115 n. 3;
Goheen 73f. But what, in the text, can the Chorus have in mind? Antigone's
words at 45 i f ? But, as Linforth (1961) 223 points out, the idea of supplication is
quite inappropriate to her attitude there. And would the minds of the Chorus
revert to 451, disregarding 839ff. which make no reference at all to dike? It is far
142 Creon and Antigone
punishment is her due reward. They are making that same equation
of justice with the laws of the state (the decrees of a Creon?) which
they have made before (cf. 368f.), but they use a metaphorical
expression which invites personification: Justice is a goddess with an
altar and so, surely, the audience is reminded that the thrasos of
Antigone had been in the service of that Justice that dwells with the
nether gods (451). Sophocles is moving towards that relationship or
lack of relationship between Antigone and the gods which is to
dominate her exit.
The second part of this four-line system consists in a single line.
Stern though their theme is, there can be no hostility towards the girl
they address as teknon (855). But a child has a father, and teknon leads
into the last line: 'But in this ordeal you are paying perhaps for a
father' (naTpwov 8' £KTIV€LS TLV* &0\OV). Their movement of mind
may be something like this: How did it come about that this young
girl, to their sorrow, had advanced to such an extremity of rashness
and brought this fate upon herself? It must be - and this they feel as a
kind of mitigation - the work of an evil inheritance. The theme is
new to this scene, but not new to the play. 69
The effect upon Antigone is striking. It is like the breaking of a
barrier to release a new flood of emotion. In the first part of the
kommos her imagination could not pass beyond the living death of the
rock-tomb to the true realm of the dead. Now once more she can
speak of herself as going to dwell with (metoikos) her dead. 70 The
horror is no longer the isolation of the tomb, but herself as caught in a
dreadful chain of doom, with father, mother, and brother. The whole
emotional background of her situation and action comes flooding out
(in words which are like a commentary upon her first speech in the
play), as we hear of her grief, her repeated lamentations for the atai
which had brought her to birth. 71 She feels herself under a curse
more likely that these staunch upholders of authority think, in Aeschylean terms,
of Antigone as having run up against dike (which they equate with the ordinances
of the state) through her thrasos. For the 'Aeschylean' interpretation see also Knox
HT 178 n. 12 and Lloyd-Jones, JZ 195 n. 63 (who defends the emendation no8l at
«55).
69
It is in fact resumed from the Second Stasimon (s83ff.). Cf. Dain-Mazon 104 n. 4.
70
Contr. 868 with 852. This is no careless slip.
71
857ff. There are difficulties in the text which do not, however, affect the general
tenour. At 862 R. D. Dawe, HSCP 72 (1967) 112 makes a strong case for reading
ircLTpwai, contr. Miiller ad loc.
Creon and Antigone 143
76
Cf. 166, 730f., 744f
77
The tears of the Chorus (803), if Antigone ever regarded them - she is thinking of
closer philoi than them - have been long lost in the sands of religion and politics.
78
Knox,HTii4.
79
To take Kaaiyvjjrov Kapa at 899 as referring to Eteocles, as is commonly done
(contr. D.B. Gregor, CR n.s. 9 (1959) 12), is a gross intrusion of logic upon
poetry. The objection is not that the bodies of both brothers were presumably
together upon the battlefield, since Sophocles might well have intended us to
forget that Antigone had no opportunity to take part in the funeral of Eteocles (or
its preliminaries). But is it conceivable that, after 870-2 and all the concentration
of Antigone on Polynices, and without the naming of the other brother, an
audience would understand this as referring to Eteocles? Who is only mentioned
by her at 21-5 and (prompted by Creon) at 512-15, and in whom (whether
because he has been duly buried or for whatever reason) she is made to show little
interest? Is it not most probable that vpsis in 900 refers only to father and mother,
passing over the mention of Polynices, only to return (with vuv 8c) to him and the
special circumstances of his case? Is it not enough to turn back to 857-71: father,
mother, Polynices?
Creon and Antigone 145
At this point an ogre stands across the critic's path. As the text is
read in the MSS, Antigone now argues that what she did she would
have done for a brother alone, and she argues upon the same lines as
the wife of Intaphernes (Herodotus 3.119), who chose that her
brother rather than her husband or one of her children should be
spared. 'This famous passage', writes Jebb, 'affords one of the most
interesting exercises for criticism which can be found in ancient
literature.' Interesting, but maddening. The passage was in Aristotle's
text. The issue, then, is whether there is enough which is abhorrent in
the content and style of 904—20 (for the lines stand or fall together) to
outweigh the improbability that Aristotle had an interpolated text.
Scholarly opinion has been about equally divided, with great names
upon both sides, but with a recent tendency to defend the passage.80
Weak-minded persons like the present writer have changed their
view again and again. I will only say that I now believe the passage to
be spurious, and for the most subjective of reasons. The first thirteen
lines of Antigone's final speech (891-903) could stand for an example
of Sophoclean eloquence at its highest point of virtuosity, deeply
moving, seemingly effortless. The last eight lines in their different
way are not inferior. Can this be said of the intervening passage with
its contorted argument and awkward locutions? If not, can this be
accounted for by the supposed movements of Antigone's mind? I
doubt it.
80
For the balance of opinion, see Hester (op. cit. n. 1) 55-80. Jebb, in his Appendix
258-63, gives a characteristically fair and lucid statement of the problem; and
Miiller, who rejects the passage, rehearses the arguments on both sides at (2) 1981T.
and 2o6ff. Knox, HT 1041Y., defends its authenticity upon lines on which it must
be defended, if at all. *In the almost hysterical hyperbole of her claim that she
would not have run such a risk for that husband and those children she will now
never live to see, she is telling Polynices that no other love, not even that she might
have had for the child of her own body, could surpass her love for him.' My own
rejection is based, essentially (and hazardously), on Stilgefuhl. It may be noted,
however, that in the kommos Antigone makes no reference to children, though
this in a hypothetical case would be a standing feature of the topos. It is omitted to
stress the loss of the real Haemon, but an interpolator is bound by the Herodotean
source to mention children. Note too that the interpolator' makes Antigone refer
to Creon by name, which otherwise she does not do between 806 and 943, using
instead the impressive plurals of 927f. and 942. Finally, I observe (for what it is
worth) that at 920 KaraoKcufry in the sense of'grave' is uncommon, but paralleled
by Aesch. Sept. 1008,1037, themselves under suspicion of interpolation! (See now
A. L. Brown, CQ 26 (1976) 215.) For a recent voice in favour of authenticity, cf.
H. J. Blumenthal, CR 24 (1974) I74f, who points to a possible reminiscence of the
Sophoclean passage at Eur. Ale. 2821T., produced some three years later.
146 Creon and Antigone
The procession leaves; Antigone leaves the play. The Chorus sings its
enigmatic song, the interest of which is divided between her and her
adversary. For the parallels which they cite are relevant not only to
her approaching end but also - in part and perhaps in whole - to the
offences of Creon. There follow Teiresias, the vain repentance and the
punishment of Creon, whose tragedy is brought to its completion.
With this we may return to the old question: who is the 'hero', the
central character of the play?
On the face of it a bad question, it may admit of an interesting
answer. It is a bad question insofar as it implies that we must find one
81
If 904-20 are excised, there is nothing offensive in the transition from 903 to 921,
except that it may seem a trifle abrupt. But of course, if there has been an
interpolation, something may have been lost.
82
But see Waldock 139, Levy 144; and, for a different interpretation of rwv aviyuuw
piirai, Schadewaldt 86 n. 2. Does Antigone speak 933f. (as in the tradition)? It is
not out of the question that she does. More probably, however, ravrrf (936) refers
to her and the preceding lines should therefore be attributed to the Chorus.
83
Hardly translatable. 'Because I feared to cast away the fear of heaven' (Jebb).
Mazon's French version is preferable: 'Pour avoir rendu hommage, pieuse, a la
piete.'
Creon and Antigone 147
the feeling of a family for its dead, the feeling of a lover for the
beloved. He believes in gods, but identifies them with the interest of
the state and, in the last analysis, the state with himself, his ambition
and his power. We see character and action in that perfect balance
which is typical of Sophocles. It is a fine dramatic theme effectively
developed.
N o one, however, discussing the distinctive features of a Sophoc-
lean hero is likely to spend much time on Creon. For, as Knox has
observed, 86 he turns out to lack the ultimate heroic obstinacy; in the
end he gives way, as other heroes do not and Antigone does not. It is
Antigone who stands along with Ajax and Electra and Philoctetes,
like them in their very different ways raising questions about the
nature of heroism, the possibility of its survival in a recalcitrant
world, and its relationship to divine governance. It is she whose
attitudes towards the great issues are truly significant, whereas those
of Creon are trite and deliberately diminished by the dramatist. She
upholds the ancient sanctities of the family and proves herself the
better citizen thereby. 87 She takes her stand on philia, with a supreme
heroic purpose which (it has been argued) goes far beyond the
courageous defiance of authority, yet she cannot evade the conflicts
inherent in her code. 88 And she raises a question of theodicy more
acute than any other in Sophocles. She raises it in her last words.
The closing comment of the play is not directed towards Antigone
or evoked by her fate. It is irrelevant to her, unless, when the
Coryphaeus speaks of 'lacking not piety towards the gods', we
remember that she went to her death with the proud claim that she
had served the cause of piety. It is a claim which must not be denied.
What just ordinance of the gods had she offended (921)? None. Yet, if
the gods avenge her, they do not save her. That a woman who, so far
from breaking divine law, had carried out a religious duty should die
shamefully and under the imputation of impiety, if it justifies her
86
Knox, HT 72ff It is striking that, at 1099, Creon - like Deianira - asks the
Chorus what he should do.
87
On the evidence of Teiresias. Which is ironical in view of her disregard of
state-authority, but Sophocles may well have believed that the family was the
custodian of values which the state could only threaten at its peril, of decencies and
religious observances were were - and ought to remain - among the established
nomoi.
88
See pp. I32f. above.
Creon and Antigone 149
indignant protest, might well cause poet and audience to reflect upon
the kind of world in which such things happen. 89
There is one further point of contrast between Creon and Antigone
remaining to be mentioned; and it involves a theme - and an impor-
tant choral ode - not yet discussed. Antigone comes, nobly, to her
disaster; Creon, in his ignoble fashion, comes to his. Why did these
things happen? The strands of causation are manifold in point of
circumstance and character. It was the fate of Creon to be confronted
with an Antigone, of Antigone to be confronted with a Creon, in a
situation which provoked a fatal clash. The antecedents of Creon are
hardly relevant:90 he is given, dramatically, as we find him. Not so
with Antigone, whose heredity is stressed. She is what she is, in part at
least, because she is the daughter of her father, having inherited a
strain which the Chorus sees as 'harshness' from an Oedipus unknown
to us. She is not only the daughter of Oedipus but member of a
doom-laden family; and to this theme Sophocles has devoted the
Second Stasimon of the play. It deals with Zeus and an Erinys and the
traditional notion, of ate. When Antigone has left the stage to be
buried alive, the Chorus, in the Fourth Stasimon, sing of the Moirai
and kindred themes. Our next subject must be Fate in Sophocles, and
it will lead up towards Oedipus Tyrannus.
89
It may not be enough to say, with Kitto (FMD 170), that *a bad man can kill a
good one' and that 'in no adult religion do the gods intervene to stop him from
doing it; it remains only for the bad man to take what consequences there may be'.
Certainly Antigone did not see it in quite that light. It was a common Greek belief
that the credit of the gods was involved in the justice which was seen or not seen to
be done upon this earth.
90
Neither his heredity nor his past experiences (apart from some elusive hints in his
first speech, on which see p. 123 above).
CHAPTER SEVEN
Fate in Sophocles
3
Cf. Onians, (op. cit. n. 2) 4O5f., where he suggests that in certain passages 'aubv
appears to mean something like Satfiwv (cf. 405 n. 8). On ananke see p. 154 below.
B. C. Dietrich, Death, fate and the gods (London 1965) 249-83, has a useful review
of the Homeric vocabulary of fate.
4
SvaSaifiajv is not found before Empedocles and the tragedians.
152 Fate in Sophocles
In human experience there was evidence one way and the other. The
jealousy and the justice of heaven fought a battle in the Greek mind.
There was evidence one way and the other. Great offenders were
seen to come to a bad end, but others lived out their lives in peace.
There were two ways of solving this problem of theodicy. There was
post-mortem punishment, in which the Greeks, particularly perhaps
in their old age, tended to believe, without its ever playing a
dominant role in their morality. 7 There was the collective responsi-
bility of the family: if the offender escaped punishment in this life,
then doubtless his descendants would pay in due course. Not only is it
a common fact of human experience that children suffer for the sins of
their parents, but the Greek feeling for the solidarity of the family was
so strong that they were able to take this perplexing notion in their
moral stride as part of the process of divine justice. For it is perplexing
in relation to individual responsibility and human freedom. If a man
suffers for his own acts, that is one thing; if he suffers as a member of a
doomed family, that is another. At least that is how we tend to see it.
Tragedy was much concerned with such cases. In Aeschylus' Aga-
memnon two trains of causation lead to Agamemnon's death. There is
the sacrifice of Iphigenia and, inextricably bound up with it, the
blood shed in the Trojan war, so that he suffers for his own acts; but
there is also the Thyestean banquet, the Furies haunting the house, so
that he suffers for the act of his father.
Agamemnon suffers for his own acts: but were these free acts? No
question has been more ardently debated than this. It shall not be
debated here. But it must be pointed out that the notion of fatality,
whether it is vaguely conceived under the name of Moira or a moira or
more specifically regarded as the will of gods, of a god, of Zeus, does
raise a problem of human freedom.
Free-will versus determinism is (so put) a philosophical issue, but
the conflict implied is also a fact of life. There have been times and
places, in human history, at which the feeling of inexorable fate has
been so strong as to sap vitality: if what is bound to be will be, then all
human striving is futile. The Greeks of the classical period were not
when from the outer spaces the magnified echo of his own voice returns to him,
promising punishment for the guilty, he draws from it courage and reassurance'
(Dodds, GI 32).
7
Cf. S. G. F. Brandon, The judgment of the dead (London 1967) 76-97; Dover, GPM
261-8; Adkins, MR 140-8.
154 Fate in Sophocles
must do, how Moira and the Moirai enter into his drama, there is a
gap to be filled.
In Homer, in addition to the notion of individual fate, the thread
spun at birth, we find another association of moira. It is associated with
the idea of order, regularity, propriety. Some scholars have indeed
thought that moira was in origin a social conception, its application to
individual fate, and especially to death, being secondary and deriva-
tive. This is hardly the impression we gain from Homer, where the
notion ofmoira as 'order' is mostly found in a limited range of phrases.
There is, nevertheless, a strong likelihood that this way of looking at
moira was an ancient feature of popular thought, together with the
notion of Erinyes as punishing breaches of moira. When we turn to
Hesiod's Theogony, we find a double parentage for the Moirai. 10 In
one passage they are, with the Keres, daughters of Night; in another
they are daughters of Zeus and Themis, like the Horai (whose names
are Eunomia, Dike and Eirene). This double parentage seems to
reflect two aspects of moira both valid for popular thought; and there
is an apparent breach between the spun thread (and its spinners) and a
principle of order and regularity. It should be noted, however, that
already in the earlier passage they are linked. The list of Night's
progeny begins with Moros and black Ker: as West rightly
remarks,11 'Moros is a man's appointed death, Moirai are the god-
desses who appoint it.' Yet, when six lines later we come to the
Moirai, they are associated with Keres, who are no longer simple fates
of death, but qualified as neleopoinoi, 'pitiless punishers', and said to
attend to the transgressions of men and gods. But are all fated deaths -
and for that matter ill fates in life - in the nature of penalties, that is to
say, related to justice? The exploration of justice, human and divine,
was a primary purpose of Aeschylus. Let us turn first to Persae and
then to Oresteia.
Xerxes, defeated and humiliated, returns to his kingdom; and his
first words are these. 'Wretched I who have met with this hateful fate
(jjioipas) most baffling. With what cruel intent has a daimon assaulted
the race of Persians' (9O9ff.). He complains that the daimon, cruel,
fickle and incomprehensible, has turned against him (942f.). His
words echo similar language used earlier in the play by Atossa and the
10
2i7ff., 9O4ff., on which see M. L. West (ed.), Hesiod Theogony (Oxford 1966), ad
locc; also F. Solmsen, Hesiod and Aeschylus (Ithaca, N.Y. 1949) 36ff.
11
On 217.
156 Fate in Sophocles
12
Pers. 725, 742, 750. On the interpretation of Persae see JHS 93 (1973) 210-19.
13
Eum. 1044 is unfortunately corrupt.
14
In Agam., personified Moira occurs rarely, the Moirai not at all. In the Parodos,
where the notion of fatality is found at 68 and 157, Moira (130) is the agent of
death, lavish and violent, at the sack of Troy; and there seems little doubt (c£. H.
Lloyd-Jones, RhM 103 (i960) 76f; CQ 12 (1962) 189) that, when the prophet
speaks of flocks, the poet means us to think of the common man, whose sufferings
in the course of divine justice are much stressed in the play. At 1535 the text is
doubtful, but it is probably Moira who sharpens the sword for a new deed of
justice (cf. Fraenkel ad loc). Cf. also 910-13 (axiv dtols elfxapfieva, after AUrj).
Fate in Sophocles 157
$ TO SIKCLLOV /zerajSatVet.
dvrl fxev ixOpds yXwoorjs €\Bpd
yXataaa reXeiaBcj' rowj>€tX6yL€vov
trpdaaovaa ALKT) fi€y* dvreV
dvTi he. nXrjyfjs <f>ovlas <f>oviav
TrXrjyrjv Tiverw. Spdaavra naOeiv,
rpiyepwv fivdos rah* (fxovei. (Cho. 306—14).
IXlflV€l § €fJu'/JLVOVTOS €V dpOVW A LOS
TraOciv TOP €p£avra' Bio\xiovyap. (Agam. 1$6${.)
dXXd VO/JLOS }i€v<f>ovias arayovas
Xvi*4vas is ir48ov dXXo npoaaireiv
atfxa- j3oa ydp Xoiyos 'Epivvv
napd roiv wporepov <f>difi€vcov arrjv
eripav indyovaav kit* OLTT). (Cho. 400—4)
16
On the divine responsibilities in this play, see (from a rather different point of
view) K. Reinhardt, Aischylos ah Regisseur und Theologe (Bern 1949) I25ff.
15 8 Fate in Sophocles
The Moirai and the Erinyes are sisters, both daughters of Night. 1 7
The Erinyes claim that the pursuit of homicides was a function
conferred on them at birth by Moira (or a moira, 333ff.) - an
ordinance ratified by moira, though granted by the gods (39iff),
whose benefactors they are by freeing them of a loathsome task. O f
Zeus they speak only to say that he rejects their company (365f.) and,
unlike Apollo and Athena, Zeus's children, they never claim to speak
with his authority.
The conflict is of course resolved by the persuasions of Athena,
whereupon it is said that Zeus and Moira have come together. But
what does it mean? This separation of Zeus from the Erinyes with
whom he has been so closely implicated in the earlier phases of the
trilogy? 18 This apparent distinction of Zeus and Moira/Moirai as
authorities? It may be suggested that what has taken place is a
deliberate sorting-out of elements which have been problematically
fused, but in preparation for the establishment of an ultimate har-
mony. Talio is a mode of justice, with divine backing. But, whether at
the divine or human level, it involves violence, cruelty and indis-
criminate suffering, of which the Erinyes are symbols. Moira, then,
and the Moirai are used to stand for the primitive, the rigid, the
intractable, the violent, the blind, the dark, aspect of divine operation.
It is not for nothing that the Moirai and the Erinyes are daughters of
Night; it is not for nothing that Persuasion has eyes (Eum. 970) and the
Zeus who joins forces with Moira is all-seeing (1046). For it is the
power of rational and benevolent persuasion that has now been added
to the mode of force. 19
17
Erinyes: 321, 745, 79if., 844, 1034. Moirai: 961.
18
'One is tempted to say, with some slight exaggeration, that, in the Agamemnon,
every reference to Erinyes is associated, textually, with Zeus, every reference to
Zeus with Erinyes, express or implied' (JHS 74 (1954) 20). At the outset 561T.;
subsequently cf. e.g. 469 after 462, 99oflf. after 973, 14856°. after 1481, 1565 after
1563.
19
I have based my account of Aeschylus on the sure ground ofPersae and Oresteia,
where all the evidence is before us. One has only to consider how our view of
moira in the trilogy would be affected if one or two of the plays were missing to
realize how we are hampered in dealing with e.g. Septem, where in the absence of
the lost plays the relationship of divine power to human responsibility remains
problematical. Cf. YCS 25 (1977) 1-45, esp. 44f. As in Cho., we find a multipli-
city of divine powers all converging to bring about the same result, but the
specific problem of Eum. seems not to be raised and its solution is therefore absent.
Besides the incompleteness of the evidence, there is a further reason for omitting
Fate in Sophocles 159
Heracles, may appear, *:hey are all in one way or another, in one
degree or another, constrained and brought down by superhuman
power, whether this is seen as a specific deity (or deities) or a vaguer
daimon or moira. Why?
When we examine the texts of the plays, what we find in the first
instance is, of course, the answers given by the participants themselves
when, confronted with some disaster, they ask this question. For it is
asked in plays as in life. Why is this happening to me, to my friend?
The answer of Greeks is likely to be in terms of gods or of 'fate'.
Answers are given by characters and by choruses. Indeed choruses,
especially perhaps choruses of elders, are great explainers. They think
they know: sometimes they are right, but equally they can be wrong,
or partly wrong. The Chorus of Antigone are partly wrong, though
essentially right, when they diagnose the mind of Haemon. 22 Faced
with the approaching fate of Antigone, is that same Chorus right to
see it as the outcome of mental folly? If so, whose folly is it? Is the
Chorus in Oedipus Tyrannus, beginning to fear for Oedipus, right to
relate ill-fate to the offences of a hubristic man?
To those odes we shall return. There are other choral explainers,
whose proclivity is less theological. Not elders, but, as in Trachiniae, a
chorus of young girls, capable of illuminating the action in terms of
Kypris, rather at sea perhaps with Zeus. 23 Not elders, but, as in Ajax,
simple sailors who in their puzzlement can tell us many things that the
22
Cf. ch. 5 p. 92.
23
As much as any play, divine power presides over the action of Track, (cf. Bowra
149; Reinhardt passim), but it is mainly associated with specific deities: with Zeus,
whose son Heracles is; with Kypris, to whose power both Heracles and Deianira
fall victims; and (as I shall argue), since the notion of retaliation bulks large in the
closing stages of the play, with the Erinyes. H o w Heracles, being what he was,
and Deianira, being what she was, under the influence of these divine powers
worked out their tragic destinies is clearly shown. Each had an aion (2^34, cf. 81),
but the question - the antecedent question - w h y the aion of each was such and
such, the question of moira and daimon is hardly raised. But, in the case of Heracles,
there are those riddling oracles, the meaning of which is revealed only after the
event, bound to be fulfilled (cf. n. 21); and it is mainly in connection with the
oracles that the language of fatality is employed: e.g. 79-81 (ficAAci); i69f.
(€i/xap/x€va).The most interesting passage is perhaps 849f., where 'the coming
fate' (fioipa) is said to bring to light 'a great and guileful disaster' (arav). This is
immediately proclaimed as the manifest work of Kypris (86of.). A little later in
the scene, the new bride is said to have given birth to a great Erinys. See pp. 212flf.
It will be argued in later chapters (9-11) that the operations of the divine world
in El. and O.C. are conceived in close relation to the Aeschylean concept of the
Erinyes. See, on fate specifically, p. 321. O n fate in Phil, see ch. 12 p. 300.
Fate in Sophocles 161
26
On the role of Athena see further p. 318.
27
379ff. 4011Y., 445ff.
28
654-67, on which see ch. 2, p. 49.
29
See pp. 210.
30
On which see n. 31.
Fate in Sophocles 163
31
The notion and vocabulary of fate enter into their short stanza at 925-36, the
structure of which is interesting. It could be paraphrased as follows: 'We ought to
have known (apa) that, being orepeofocw, you were bound (l^teAAcs") to bring
about a moira of immeasurable troubles. Such were the bitter complainings
which, as we heard, you, being (hixfyptuv, uttered day and night against the
Atridae. We can now see (apa) that that time was a potent source of woes when
the contest for the arms was set up.' The word xpovos, so important in the play,
enters twice. On the second occasion, the singers have in mind that span of time,
brief but powerful in its effect (so f-ieyas, cf. 714), which embraced the Judgement
of the Arms. They see it, like others within the play and many modern scholars, as
the beginning of woes. When, however, at the beginning of the stanza they sing:
(EiieAAes xpovo* i£avvao€iv fxolpav they are, surely, using language more appro-
priate to the fulfilment over a long span of time of a pre-destined fate. The second
half (with its repetition of xp°v°s) merely shows how unduly narrow their
time-scale is by comparison with the far-receding perspective offered by Calchas
- and the poet (cf. pp. 4of. above). Ajax was indeed in the long course of time
fulfilling a destiny inherent in his nature, which was to be or€p€cx)>pojv and
O)(*6<f>ptoV.
164 Fate in Sophocles
Divine power broods over the action. Ask the question Why?, and
there is always a divine component, though not necessarily the sole
component, in the answer. When we ask the same question of Oedipus
Tyrannus, what shall we find? Or of Antigone?
Why did these events fall out as they did? Why for Antigone? Why
for Creon? To the latter question there might seem a simple answer in
the closing anapaests: he is punished for his arrogance and impiety.
His final entry is greeted with the choral comment that his disaster
was the fruit of his own error (OVK aXXorpiav aryv dAA' avros
d/xaprciv, I259f.); and Creon accepts from the Chorus - and from
Teiresias (iO23ff.) — that he has erred, that his wits were astray and his
counsels wrong. It has been shown 34 that ate and hamartia are closely
linked in traditional (and tragic) thought, but the genesis of the
infatuation which leads to the fatal mistake need not always be seen in
the same light. Creon attributes his error to the antecedent influence
of a god (i27iff.); and both he and the Chorus regard the disastrous
outcome as his destiny. Twice he uses the word potmos; and, when the
Coryphaeus hears him wish for death, he says that 'mortals have no
escape from a destined disaster' (TreTrpco/Ltcv^? . . . avfixfropas, 1337^-).
We may be reminded of Xerxes ascribing to the incomprehensible
cruelty of a daimon what Darius had revealed as the chastisement of
Zeus. What kind of moira is this? What kind of ate? We need not
expect much enlightenment from Creon, but the Chorus have pre-
tensions to theology and have sung a song about ate to which we shall
shortly return.
32
See also p. 44 n. 98.
33
Baifuov at 504 balances rfjs avayKaias TVX*)S at 485, rounding off the first half of
her speech in a kind of ring-composition.
34
Cf. n. 25.
Fate in Sophocles 165
35
For an interpretation of this ode, see ch. 5 pp. 98ff.
36
Seech. 6 p. 149.
37
Seech. 6 ibid.
38
See ch. 6 p. 123.
166 Fate in Sophocles
has no deliverance from the stroke of a god. They see this clearly now,
for only Antigone and Ismene are left, who are to die. They sing of a
light spread in the house of Oedipus and of its last root, but these in
their turn are to perish. They sing of the nether gods and an erinys;
they sing of folly.
My mention of themes may seem strangely selective. The unfor-
tunate fact is that the text and interpretation of this crucial passage are
highly - and rightly - controversial. Something must be said, how-
ever reluctantly, about this controversy. What is it that destroys the
root (or the light, or the root which is the light of hope)? 44 In the
received text are three nominatives, and the first is konis: 'the bloody
dust o f the nether gods' (<f>oi.via Oe&v TCJV veprepcav . . . KOVIS). A n d
Antigone is about to suffer for casting dust over her brother's man-
gled body to meet the requirements of the nether gods. This is
splendid, 45 but the verb is kataman, which means to mow or cut
down. Dust may quench a light: but can it be said to cut a root? It is
not surprising that Jortin thought ofkopis or 'chopper' (though that
cannot quench a light), konis or kopis: scholars will continue to take
sides in this controversy, they must~4o so with full cognizance of the
difficulties of the ensuing line, which appears to provide us with two
more nominatives: anoia and erinus. Since three separate subjects seem
a bit much, it is likely that, if the text is sound, the second and third
nominatives are in apposition to the first, that (difficult though it may
be) the 'dust' or 'chopper' is described as, or equated with, 'folly of
story. Why was he not to have a son? As against this, Sept. 720-91 has so much the
character of a resume that one hesitates to assume any antecedent that is not stated
or implied in the course of that ode. One must, I fear, confess ignorance. Cf. YCS
25 (1977) 29ff. O n the difficulties of 594f. see Easterling, Ant. 145.
44
The text is uncertain. I hesitate between \mkp (which Easterling defends) and
Hermann's on€p, with which />t£a? becomes a defining genitive, the 'light' or
hope of salvation consisting in the last survivors of the stock. This is, however,
only the first of the textual problems that bedevil this passage, on which see H.
Lloyd-Jones, CQ 7 (1957) 17-19 and Easterling, Ant. 146—9.
45
Dust, as a word of darkness, would pick up the language of the great simile in the
strophe and, equally, contrast with the brilliant light in which, as we shall hear,
Zeus lives. Cf. Goheen 60. The essence o f this singularly intractable problem is
that the poet, having spoken in the first part of the sentence of'light' and 'root',
then (if the text is sound) combines a noun appropriate to the former with a verb
appropriate to the latter in a mixed metaphor which would raise an eyebrow in
Aeschylus. If Easterling's objections to KOTTU (see below) are cogent, I still feel that
her defence of the received text - and the triple subject - is a little optimistic. For
further doubts see the following note.
168 Fate in Sophocles
speech' and what (if it is a tolerable locution at all) 46 can only mean
'madness of mind'. The word translated 'madness' is erinus.
In this unsatisfactory text the fixed points would seem to be that the
nether gods are operative and that the notion of an Erinys is associated
with a distracted mind. Within these limits we must try and follow
the mental process of a chorus of traditional theologians as they
contemplate the approaching end of Antigone in the light of the
family history. The history was one of recurrent ate. When they used
the word in the first stanza (584), they meant disaster as objective as
the evils (KOLKWV) of 582, the woes (Tr^/xara) of 595. Disaster is sent by
the gods (584, 596f.) and, until near the end of the second stanza, there
is no direct reference to the human factor. It was, however, a
traditional notion that the gods bring about the downfall of those
whom, for whatever reason, they wish to destroy by inspiring them
with an infatuate folly which leads to a fatal act. And now we hear of
anoia. And it must be the anoia of Antigone: it can be no other. 47 And
the anoia of Antigone consisted in her disobedience. And the Chorus
know, as we know, in what that disobedience itself consisted. The
paradox is extraordinary. The nether gods destroy her for an act of
piety towards them, which is an act of infatuated folly; an Erinys
works within her to her detriment, causing her to perform an action
the non-performance of which would, if we may believe Teiresias
(iO74f), be punishable by Erinyes. Like us, the Chorus has heard her
speak of Zeus: of Zeus they now sing.
Str. £' (604-14). Their thought moves from the dark chthonian
realm to the radiance of Olympus, to ask what contravention of men
can hold in check the power of Zeus. And we are immediately
46
</>p€vd)v 'Epivvs as a locution and concept in Sophocles has been readily accepted
by all interpreters, perhaps too readily. My doubts are expressed in BICS 26
(1979) 71*. The objection to this expression is that it waters down, if not abolishes,
the personification which is strongly present in such non-literal references to
Erinyes as Track. 895 and Aj. 1034. It is an abstraction, balancing avoia; and I find
it hard to believe that Sophocles, in this ode of Aeschylean tone, following a
reference to the nether gods, introduced, in close proximity to the name of Zeus,
something which is unparalleled in his extant work, namely a dilute psychological
Euripidean fury.
47
At her entrance the Coryphaeus had spoken of her as caught kv auf>poavvr) (383);
and Creon has recently (56 i f ) described both Antigone and Ismene as avovs. But
why stress 'folly of word' (603), when, to the knowledge of the Chorus, she had
spoken no word of folly before her fatal action? They have indeed heard her
obstinate defiance of Creon on the stage. Like so much in this ode, however, the
true significance relates to Creon himself (see below).
Fate in Sophocles 169
surprising? One thing is clear: they are using the traditional associ-
ation of disaster with excessive wealth and prosperity, familiar from
Herodotus, familiar from Aeschylus, in whose work it is well exem-
plified in Persae, but above all perhaps in a famous passage of Agamem-
non (75off.) where, if wealth is rejected as the sole and sufficient cause
of disaster, its dangers and temptations are clearly recognized. So
strong is this association that we find cases in tragedy in which it seems
to be introduced without much relevance. 52 Is this such a case?
Before we write it down as such, we should reflect that in Antigone
Sophocles seems often toj have had in mind the Aeschylean trilogy of
which Septem was the final play; and there are strong indications that
wealth was an important theme in that trilology, a cause of conflict
and of woe. 5 3 In our play it was no part of Antigone's 'folly' to lust
after wealth. Turn, however, to the words of the Messenger who
brought news from the cave. On Creon's fall from good to bad
fortune he comments in conventional terms which might at first seem
otiose. 54 Monarchical power Creon still has, but has lost all pleasure
in life. 'Heap up riches in thy hoifse, if thou wilt; live in kingly state;
yet, if there be no gladness therewith, I would not give the shadow of
a vapour for all the rest, compared with joy' (Jebb, 1168-71). Creon,
if we have seen him aright, was ambitious for power; wealth is the
base of power; wealth, power and kingship, form a traditional
complex of ideas. 55 Perhaps we can now see that, in making his
Chorus move away from the Labdacids, away from the family
towards the individual offender, Sophocles is himself moving away
from Antigone in the direction of Creon, whom we shall find
without much difficulty in the final stanza of the present ode. It is the
notion of wealth which leads into that stanza.
Ant. j8' (615-25). They continue: 'For wide-wandering Hope is an
advantage to many men, but to many it is deception by light-witted
lusts' (6i5ff.). Elpis, here half-personified, is hope, perhaps ambition;
and it works two ways. If it can be advantageous as a spur to effort,
52
'Irrelevant' cases: Ajax 130,488; Track. 133. On wealth in Persae, d.JHS 93 (i973)
214, 216. On wealth in our play, cf. Goheen 14-19.
53
Cf. Sept. 733, 77i, 950, and YCS 25 (1977) 33*"-
54
Cf. ch. 6 p. 127.
55
In O. T. we find the hero speaking of wealth and tyranny in one breath (380), the
Chorus singing of the hubristic king whose hubris is caused by a satiety of many
things (873ff.). See ch. 8 p. 189.
Fate in Sophocles 171
The trains of thought are not too difficult to follow. The succession of
disasters which dog the house; the operation of nether powers, and
then of Zeus; a law that relates disaster to excessive prosperity and to
the temptations which it offers men so that their judgement fails and
disaster ensues. If the motivation of the divine powers remains imper-
fectly defined, human culpability is strongly indicated. And the
culprit is Creon. His is the folly of word and action; it is he who will
be pursued by a conjunction of divine powers for a breach of divine
law; it is he who takes bad for good. It has been well observed how the
notions of this ode are picked up in the closing scene, with its stress on
error and false judgement. 59 But the singers are not thinking of
Creon. If the ode is echoed in the closing scene, itself it echoes that
earlier song sung of the person still unknown who had committed the
crime, who had defied the edict and buried Polynices. And that
person was Antigone. And it was the approaching end of Antigone
which prompted this ode and the Chorus' desire to explain. Hence the
twofold paradox: that she is at once meeting the demands of the
nether gods and victim of an Erinys, that she is obeying a law of Zeus
and destroyed by him. She knows it, and in her last words speaks of
what she suffers ten eusebian sebisasa. According to the doctrine of this
ode, Antigone should have been destroyed through her own infatu-
ated error, transgressing the authority of Zeus in a desire for harmful
things. The pattern has gone wrong; the explanation does not work
out. If this is a world in which a Creon gets his deserts, it is also one in
which an Antigone is destroyed for doing Zeus's bidding. We shall
find a similar false explanation of disaster in a similar ode in Oedipus
Tyrannus. There too it is the Second Stasimon and central to the play.
It is extremely complex; its interpretation has been much debated,
and it will be examined in the following chapter. Since it is much
concerned with the fate of Oedipus, we must, however, first consider
59
This is well brought out by Dawe (op. cit. n. 25) H2f.
Fate in Sophocles 173
how the notion — and the vocabulary — of fate enter into that play. 60
daimon (ris ixOpoSaificDv fiaXXov; 816), than he now is? For he is liable
to his own ban pronounced upon the killer of Laius, and he is sleeping
with the wife of the man he killed. Not only so, but he is (so he thinks)
in exile from his native land for fear of wedding his mother and
killing his father. 'Would not a man be right to judge of me that these
things come from a cruel daimon (aTr' wfiov . . . Saifiovos, 828)?
Oedipus, then, attributes to a cruel and hostile superhuman power the
destiny which is so much worse than he yet knows. When it becomes
known, when Oedipus, knowing it, has entered the palace, the
Chorus argues the nothingness of man from the daimon of Oedipus.
Later in the ode they sing (i2i3f.): * All-seeing time has found you
out 5LKOVTCL\ it brings to justice the monstrous marriage in which the
begotten has long been the begetter.' This inadequate translation of
the untranslatable omits to translate one word: SLKOVTO.. 'Unwilling'
or 'unwitting' as epithet of Oedipus. The conscious criminal seeks to
evade detection which comes upon him against his will. But this does
not apply. What, then, was contrary to the will or knowledge of
Oedipus? 63 There is perhaps at this point a deliberate ambiguity
which is cleared up, when, a few lines later, a servant comes out of the
palace, now polluted (as he says) with new evils which will soon come
to light - 'evils wrought consciously and not unwittingly' (eKovra
KOVK aKovTa, 1230). A distinction could not more clearly and em-
phatically be made between the unwilled and the willed deeds of
Oedipus; and it is reinforced by the Messenger's general comment,
that 'those griefs sting most that are seen to be self-chosen'
(avOalperoi, 1231). The distinction is clearly made, and we expect it to
be clearly maintained. When he killed his father and wedded his
mother, Oedipus was a victim of the gods, but, when he blinded
himself, he was a free agent. How attractive to look at matters in this
way, and how limited the truth of it may be! But we have not heard
the last about fate, about the daimon of Oedipus.
The Messenger tells his story of the suicide of Jocasta and the
self-blinding of her son and husband. The doors open again, and the
blinded Oedipus comes out. The reactions of the Chorus are gov-
erned, as those of any audience must be, by this sight, the most
dreadful they have ever seen. 'What madness came upon you? Who
63
'He had not foreseen the disclosure which was to result from his inquiry into the
murder of Laius' (Jebb). More significantly, surely, he had not known that his
actions were crimes. Cf. O.C. 977, 987.
Fate in Sophocles 175
was the daimon that leapt, with a bound exceeding the extreme,
upon . . .?' Upon what? The whole expression is, once more, essen-
tially untranslatable,64 and I can only conclude with a free expansion:
'. . . upon that moira of yours that was already a daimon s evil work'.
The evil destiny of Oedipus had seemed to have reached an extreme
point and to have provided the perfect paradigm of ill-starred
humanity, but there was still a further point of misery to be reached,
and that too is ascribed to the assault of a daimon. Later, groping in his
sightlessness, hearing his voice (as Jebb well puts it) 'borne from him
on the air in a direction over which he has no control', Oedipus
exclaims: 'Oh daimon, that you should have sprung so far!' (io> Sal/iov,
lv* etjrjXov, 1311). It is clear from his preceding words and from the
response of the Coryphaeus that he is thinking of his blindness. Later
again, the Coryphaeus asks: 'How could you bring yourself so to
destroy your sight? What daimon moved you to it?' (ris a* inrjpe
8aii*6vtov; 1328). Oedipus might have said - and critics sometimes
write as though he had said:65 'As for my other sufferings, they were
the work of Apollo, but, when I struck my eyes, the responsibility
was mine alone (and you are wrong to ask what daimon moved
me).' 66 Actually he replies: 'It was Apollo, my friends, it was Apollo
that was bringing these sufferings of mine to completion. But it was
none other's hand that struck the blow: it was I.' The reiterated name
of Apollo must be answering the question: 'What daimon?'; the expres-
sion 'these sufferings of mine' cannot exclude and may primarily
denote the visible suffering which dominates the scene. It would be
tidy to suppose that, whereas Apollo was, through his oracle, respon-
sible for the earlier sufferings of Oedipus, the unprophesied self-
64
CO SciVOTCLTOV TTOLVTWV CUT* €y
npoocKVpo* rjSrf. ris o\ <L TX
npoa€prj pavta; ris 6 TrrfBriaas
li€i£ova Salfuov rwv fiaKtOTwv
npos afj SvaSalfiovt poipq.; (O. T. 1299— 1302)
Herejebb's translation seems to miss the point through failure to relate the passage
to the preceding choral ode.
65
So, apparently, Gould (1) 379; (2) 588.
66
'AnoXXwv TO8 f ty, 'AnoMwv, #Acu,
6 KaKa KCLKO, TCACOV 6/LUi T(i8* f/xd ndOea.
€Trat<7€ 8* avrox€tp vw ov-
TIS, dAA' €yu> TXdfiwv. (O. T. 1329-32)
Sophocles might have written something like ra fiev aXXa . . ., but he did not.
176 Fate in Sophocles
67
ovScls €K<x)vafiaprdvet. If the play was written in the early or middle 420s (which is
as good a guess as any), the Socratic doctrine may already have been known.
According to B. Snell (Philologus 97 (1948) I25flf.) Euripides was in controversy
against this doctrine when he wrote Hippolytus in 428. This may or may not be
true, but it is likely that the nature and origins of passion, and its relation to human
responsibility, were a living issue about the time that O. T. was written. Most
critics would now agree that Sophocles was well aware of contemporary intellec-
tual movements, whatever he thought of them.
68
R. W. Livingstone, in Greek poetry and life (ed. C. Bailey et al., Oxford 1936) i6of.
and Knox, OTh I9sff., exaggerate the rationality of the act. I27iff. express an
instinctive revulsion rather than a train of thought; I369ff. are a rationalization
which is soon shown to be illusory (see n. 69.). This criticism does not of course
affect the value of Knox's illuminating remarks about 'the recovery of Oedipus'
(OTh 185). Cf. GellieiO2.
69
The illusion o f I389f. (TO yap | TTJV <f>povri8* etjw r<hv KOLKWV OIK€IV yXvKv) is
immediately dispelled as Oedipus reviews his life and, above all, by the vivid
picture of I398f. Cf. 1401 (ipd fiov fiefivrjaB* €n . . .), but it isOedipus himself
who must live with this memory (cf. 1318). Contr. I386ff. with 14721T.
Fate in Sophocles 177
1
This study of the Second Stasimon of Oedipus Tyrannus is a slightly modified
version of/HS 91 (1971) 119-35. In that article I carried forward a brief discussion
of the Stasimon contained in Anderson 39-41, in which I suggested that Sopho-
cles used the song of the Chorus to put forward - and by implication to reject - a
religious interpretation of the fate of Oedipus which might be described as
Aeschylean. A similar view was later advanced independently by G. Miiller, 'Das
zweite Stasimon des Konig Odipus', Hermes 95 (1967) 269-91. There is a similar
choice of readings in some crucial passages, and there are two fundamental issues
on which we are agreed: (i) that, as e.g. in Antigone, the words of the Chorus are
used ironically to convey an underlying sense at variance with the conscious
mental processes of the singers; and (ii) that Sophocles is reacting to an Aeschylean
interpretation or at least to an interpretation of a traditional kind for which the
parallels are in Aeschylus (and Solon). I cannot follow Miiller in imputing to the
Chorus the hubris which they impute to Oedipus - nor indeed in the view that
they are, flatly, accusing Oedipus (and Jocasta) of hubris.
179
180 The fall of Oedipus
They feel that, unless facts and prophecy are shown to be in full
agreement, this will be the end of oracular authority and the end of
religion (if that is how we should translate ra Beta); and they pray to
Zeus the supreme king to give the matter his attention. It is the facts -
the apparent facts — that cause their concern. But, when in the first
stanza they sing about reverent purity of word as well as of deed, it is
commonly - and I think rightly - held that they have in mind, among
other things, the impious words of Jocasta. It may be a useful
preliminary to the examination of the ode as a whole, if we first
examine the 'impiety' (if that is the correct term) ofjocasta, endorsed,
as it appears to be, by Oedipus.
late fifth century. But Sophocles does not wish to leave things at that
level.4 When, at 720, Jocasta mentions the name of Apollo and says he
did not bring it about that the child killed his father and the father
died at the hands of his child, she might simply mean: 'as he would
have done, if the oracle had emanated from him'. 5 But she may be
slipping into a form of expression which reveals her true thought.
Certainly at the end of the scene (853f.) she speaks of Loxias: 'who
Loxias said clearly was to die at my son's hand'. And now she has
more Delphic oracles to think upon than the oracle given to Laius,
when she draws her conclusion that henceforth, so far as prophecy
goes, she will look neither this way nor that (857f). We need not
excogitate subtleties to save the credit ofjocasta. 6 This, surely, is what
she really thinks — and what it was natural to think. And it is what the
chorus are afraid to think, when they sing the last stanza of the
Stasimon (898ff.). They are not now interested in hypothetical dis-
tinctions between Apollo and his ministers. It is the credit of all
oracular shrines, and particularly Apollo's, which is at stake; and this
involves TOL deia and should be matter of concern to Zeus. The theme
must, however, be pursued into the following scene.
The Chorus sings that Apollo is 'nowhere manifest in his honours'.
4
When we are told that Sophocles wished to counteract that scepticism about
prophecy which (together with credulity) became prevalent during the Pelopon-
nesian War, we are entitled to ask what prophecies and what oracles current
during this period he thought it desirable that his compatriots should believe,
remembering that he was not a recluse who only emerged from his study to feed a
Holy Snake but a man of the world who had held high office in the state. He must
have known as well as anybddy that most of the prophecies in circulation were
fraudulent and that people were wise to be sceptical of them. He must have
known that the warring parties desired to control ora AHH shrines (cf. Thuc.
1.112.5) not only for the sake of their treasures (Thuc. 1.121.3; 143.1) but for the
propaganda value of their oracles; and, if he heard that Delphi had promised
support to the Spartans (Thuc. 1.118.3), he will have drawn that same distinction
between Apollo and his ministers that Jocasta makes and that even Spartans, used
as they were to pro-Spartan oracles, were prepared on occasion to make (cf. Thuc.
5.16.2 and Gomme ad loc). The more reverence he had for Delphi the more he
will have regretted the necessity of making this distinction, but he could not mend
matters by encouraging the Athenians to accept whatever emanated from this
source. For us there is a danger that such a line of interpretation will obscure the
prime function of oracles in Sophocles, which is to serve as supreme symbols of
divine knowledge and thus of human ignorance. (These matters are well discussed
by Gould (1) 604-8.)
5
Cf. 724f-
6
Cf. Jebb (on 711): 'in 853 . . . the name of the god merely stands for that of his
Delphian priesthood'; Miiller, OT 271. Contr. Knox, OTh 172; O'Brien 10.
182 The fall of Oedipus
Then, ironically, the sceptical Jocasta comes out and prays to Apollo.
It is an idea which has 'occurred to her' (8d|a /JLOL TrapeoTadr), 911) and
only after admonition (frapaivovoa, 918) has failed, and when she
cannot persuade her husband 'to judge the new', as a rational man
(avrjp evvovs) would do, 'by the old'. She prays Apollo to provide 'a
solution of purity' (XVGLV rivy. . . evayrj), which, ironically, is just
what he cannot and will not in fact do. Then, ironically, the prayer
seems to be answered - and in the most paradoxical way, by the
destruction of Apollo's credit. Not only the oracle given to Laius, but
one half of the oracle given to Oedipus appears not to have been
fulfilled. The messenger from Corinth enters at the close of Jocasta's
prayer and reveals that the reputed father of Oedipus has died a
natural death. And Jocasta reacts as we might expect. 'You oracles of
the gods, see where you stand now!' (946f). By oracles of the gods she
means what she says,7 here and when she addresses Oedipus (who
now enters): 'Listen and take note to what have come the worshipful
oracles of the gods' (952f). The oracles, the prophecies, are now
(sarcastically) aefivd — a word which recalls the language of the
preceding ode (864, 886, 899). Oedipus, whose assent at 859 had been
perfunctory (his mind was on other things), 8 is now convinced, 'Why
then should one look to the hearth of the Pythian seer or birds that
scream above our heads?'9 Yet he half-recoils; and this recoil is
described by one critic as 'sincere and pious and characteristic of the
hero'. 10 Sincere and pious it may be, but, in trying to rescue the credit
of the oracle, he reduces it to complete triviality (969f). Still, half the
oracle stands unrefuted; still, since his 'mother' remains alive,
Oedipus cannot be completely reassured. In the attempt to reassure
7
This is denied by Jebb (on 946) and by Miiller.
8
Jebb ('he assents, almost mechanically') is right as against Knox, OTh 174, who
speaks of 'firmly expressed approval'. The words (KOLXWS vofjLi&is) commit
Oedipus to little; he is preoccupied with the thought that he may be the killer of
Laius and sends for the eye-witness. Cf. Miiller, OT 272.
9
It was to Pytho that he had himself sent Creon (7of). Bird-omens played no part
at Delphi: the reason they are mentioned here is to remind us of Teiresias, who is
not in fact much in the mind of Oedipus at this point. It is natural that the
non-fulfilment of a prophecy relating to himself should make more impression on
him than that of a prophecy given to Laius. So much so that he now seems to
forget what he remembered then: the circumstantial evidence pointing to him as
the killer of Laius. This now recedes into the background, but the hint of Teiresias
(and his bird-watching) reminds the audience.
10
J. T. Sheppard in his edition on 969 (cl TI /LAT) Tcbfito n69u> KT\.). The triviality is
such that Oedipus can go on to say that the deanlGfiara are afi*
The fall of Oedipus 183
him, Jocasta for her part reduces the oracle to the level of a dream -
and a particular dream which in the nature of things is virtually never
fulfilled (98 if.). 1 1 The messenger sets the fears of Oedipus at rest, and
so the truth comes out.
How culpable, then, was the scepticism ofJocasta and, in its degree,
of Oedipus? Sophocles may have been more disposed to bring out the
irony of the situation than to impute blame to his characters. Never-
theless, what they say is impious and is proved false.
There is a further difference between the scepticism of the Chorus
and that of Jocasta: the Chorus had only their feelings, Jocasta had
evidence. 12 She argues from apparent facts. The oracle said that Laius
would die at the hands of his son. But the child died in infancy and
Laius was killed by strangers (perhaps, it seems, by the stranger
Oedipus, which is bad enough). Therefore the oracle was not ful-
filled. How then should she have argued, if she had had a firm
religious faith in oracles? 13 She should have said: the son of Laius
cannot have died, the killer of Laius, whoever he was, must have been
that son — and, if Oedipus killed him, Oedipus was that son. Similarly,
after the messenger has brought the news from Corinth (and before
he has spoken of the parentage of Oedipus), Jocasta and Oedipus
should have argued: Oedipus is prophesied to kill his father; Polybus
has died a natural death; therefore, Polybus was not his father. 14 But
this is not at all the way in which human beings could be expected to
argue, least of all perhaps Greeks. Jocasta and Oedipus reason, as in the
circumstances of human life people must reason, in a plausible way on
the basis of apparent facts. N o w there is a certain rashness always in
trusting to appearances; and it is a hundred times rash for a character
in Greek tragedy and in a tragedy by Sophocles. We can say, if we
like, that Jocasta is intellectually superficial and Oedipus intellectually
arrogant; and there is some truth, perhaps an important truth, in this.
Oedipus trusts his intellect too much and must learn how fallible it is.
Jocasta is governed by her affections and will use any means, whether
11
noXXol yap 77817 KCLV oveipaaiv fiporcbv \ firjrpl £wrjvvaa6r}oav. Cf. Kitto, Poiesis
230. This reference to a 'Freudian' dream, in a context of triviality, is a clear
indication that Freudian notions, relevant as they may be to the myth, are not so
to the Sophoclean play.
12
She has arnUia (710). C f Gellie 88f.
13
The question seems hardly ever to have been asked, at least not so crudely!
14
And Oedipus ought perhaps to have remembered the drunken diner and the
doubts that sent him to Delphi.
184 The fall of Oedipus
The discussion has so far dealt with one obvious point of contact
between the ode and the preceding scene: the scepticism of Jocasta
which carries a taint of impiety and so threatens the religious world.
This apart, it is not so much the lack of relevance which has exercised
critics as the difficulty of seeing precisely how the development of
relevant themes relates. The whole Stasimon is, as one might expect, a
reaction to the preceding Episode, which fell into two parts. First,
there was the scene between Oedipus and Creon, with Jocasta inter-
vening and the Chorus too playing a role. The scene is 'political' and
full of political language. 16 It was also disquieting to the Chorus. So
too had been the scene with Teiresias, but their loyalty to Oedipus,
firmly based on gratitude, there remained unshaken (483-511): they
had rather doubt the skill of the prophet than the wisdom of Oedipus,
15
Gellie95.
16
From av8p€$ noXirai (513) onward.
The fall of Oedipus 185
at least until clear evidence was shown. In the Creon-scene, still loyal
and grateful, they are disturbed at the apparent injustice of their king
and plead with him - and it is to be noted that they plead success-
fully. 17 In the ode they sing of hubris and tyranny; and these themes
are, in all probability, suggested to their minds by the recent beha-
viour of Oedipus, though they can hardly yet be regarding him as, in
act, a hubristic ruler. 18 Certainly, however, the second stanza is
'political', in that it begins with 'tyranny' and ends with a reference to
ov
TO KCLXWS €x KoXti iraXaioixa (whatever exactly that may mean).
The second half of the episode was between Oedipus andjocasta,
and it revealed two things. It revealed a strong presumption that
Oedipus was impure (avayvos): actually impure, if he was the killer of
Laius, now sleeping with the wife of the man he had killed (82if.),
subject to the curse he had himself pronounced; potentially impure, if
the oracle given to him should be fulfilled. He feels that on either
score he is the victim of a daimon, hostile and cruel (816, 828). But is it
certain that the oracle will be fulfilled? Jocasta had shown reason to
suppose that another oracle had not been fulfilled and was led into
words of scepticism. To the impurity of Oedipus, which in fact was
shared by Jocasta, is added the impiety of Jocasta, which was to be
endorsed by Oedipus. These are the themes which lead into the first
stanza.
couple words and deeds, as the Greeks so often do. Purity (ayvela) is
especially a matter of deeds, of acts (which, irrespective of motive, can
automatically render a man impure); it is impossible not to recall the
word 'impure' (avayvos, 823), which Oedipus applied to himself.
Piety (eiWjSeia) can be a matter of deed or word. Here €VG€TTTOS
('well-reverencing') will remind us of the 'impiety' ofjocasta to-
wards oracles; and the stem is picked up twice (886, 898f.) in the
closing stanza. The combination of evaenrog ayvela, moreover,
echoes the apostrophe of Oedipus to 'pure and awful gods' (w detov
ayvov oeflas, 830). The gods are themselves pure (ayvoi), and they
demand reverence (acjSas). And now the words of Oedipus and
Jocasta have diffused an atmosphere of impurity and impiety, vague
and hard to seize. The Chorus is disquieted and prays for pious
purity.
It is tantamount to a prayer, but expressed in a rather unusual way.
They do not, being Greeks, pray for grace (in the Christian sense) or
strength of purpose. They express a wish for a moira, the implication
being that what they desire is something divinely apportioned. They
ask that moira, or a moira, may be with them as they bear, or have, that
reverent purity which seems to them to be so necessary. It has been
suggested 20 that we ought to take it as follows: 'Would that destiny
were with me so long as I maintain this state.' But that can hardly be
right. Destiny (moira) is not to be thought of as a helpful power which
may leave you in the lurch if you behave badly. This would not be a
normal Greek way of looking at it and, as will be seen, is unthinkable
in this of all places. Your moira is with you, for good or ill, inescapa-
bly, throughout your life: it is what in fact happens or is going to
happen to you, which may be good or bad, which may be now good,
now bad. The Chorus are now pure and pious and they long to
remain so, but recognize that whether they remain so' or not is a
matter of their moira. So they express the wish that a moira, their moira,
may stay with them being in that condition in which they now are, of
possessing reverent purity. 21
20
J. C. Kamerbeek in his edition ad loc. and previously in 'Comments on the
Second Stasimon of the Oedipus Tyrannus' in WS 79 (1966) 83f.
21
^epovrt need mean no more than 'possess', here and at 1190 (cf. Ant. 1090). On the
force of the participle seejebb's note. The force of the article rdv? Does it mark an
abstraction? Or look forward to the definition (8651!.), despite the fact that the
antecedent of wv is Xoycov tpywv T€?Or could it have a possessive force: that purity
which they now enjoy?
The fall of Oedipus 187
A moira that stays with you, associates with you, is not unlike a
daimon. The two words can mean much the same, though daimon is
often (but not always) more strongly personified than moira.22 Both
words are important in the play, important for the story of Oedipus.
It was the moira of Oedipus to fall at the hands of Apollo (376),23 of
Laius to be killed by his own son (713); Oedipus will speak of his moira
at 1458. But the crucial passage linking moira and daimon comes later
(i3ooff), when the Coryphaeus speaks in one breath of Oedipus'
daimon and of his moira as dusdaimon, saying that, with the self-blind-
ing, a daimon had leaped with a mighty leap upon a moira that was
already the work of an evil daimon.24 Here, since the notions of moira
and daimon are so closely linked, it is not possible to separate moira
(863, and for that matter at 887) from what Oedipus has just said
about his daimon: that, as the apparent killer of Laius, lying under his
own curse, his daimon was hostile (816), and that, as the man to whom
it was prophesied that he would kill his father and marry his mother,
it was cruel (828f). There was a time, then, when the moira of
Oedipus included purity (and whenjocasta was pious), but that time,
it seems, is no longer. The Chorus ask for themselves a continuance of
'pious purity'.
It seems that Oedipus is, or may be, in breach of the laws which
demand purity (though, as we know, unwittingly in breach of them).
If so, he must suffer: this is not stated, but implied. He is, or may be, in
breach of the laws which govern relationship to parents; and to
remind us of this (and indeed to make us think of Oedipus and his
situation throughout the stanza) Sophocles accumulates, in his charac-
teristic fashion, words of parentage as metaphors in the description of
the divine laws: begotten (T€KV<DO€VT€S) 25
in the heavenly ether, whose
father {irarrip) is Olympus alone, nor did the mortal nature (<f>vois) of
men bring them to birth (<ETIKT€V). That is their origin; and that is where
22
Cf. Dodds, GI 42 (and n. 79).
23
Despite Knox's argument (OTh j{.), I still feel that Brunck's emendation is
necessary. There is no question of a fall of Teiresias due to Apollo or otherwise nor
of a moira of Teiresias, whereas the fall and moira of Oedipus are crucial. It is after
rrpos y* ifiov that Oedipus thinks of Creon (so J. T. Sheppard ad l o c ) , a man who
is not blind (contr. 374f.).
24
See previous chapter p. 175.
25
The sense of the strophe is unaffected by doubts about the text. I am happy to see
that Housman's brilliant solution, adopted by Pearson, is now commended on
metrical grounds by L. P. E. Parker, CQ 18 (1968) 253.
188 The fall of Oedipus
they dwell. They are vifjlnoS^g,26 (which is the first thing we are told
of them): their feet move on high, which is their natural place, since
they are not of'mortal nature' like all the children of men - and like
Oedipus. There is a great god in them (jxeyas kv TOVTOIS Oeos) - or
great is a god in them — that grows not old and so secures them from
oblivion. Greatness, perhaps, belongs only to the gods. In the last
stanza, in their prayer to Zeus, the Chorus will return to the theme of
divine power, but it may not be irrelevant to the stanza they are now
about to sing.
26
I am inclined to agree with Knox (OTh. 182-4) that there is a play, here and in the
antistrophe (878) and elsewhere, on the name OlSirrovs. See, more recently, J.-P.
Vernant, 'Ambiguite et renversement: sur la structure enigmatique d'Oedipe-
roi\ in J.-P. Vernant and P. Vidal-Naquet, Mythe et trage'die en Grece ancienne
(Paris 1973) H3f-
The problems of strophe (see n. 25) and antistrophe are interdependent. Wolffs
cLKporara ycta* (for which see Jebb's references) is called 'very tempting' by
Kamerbeek and 'most seductive' by Lattimore (PG T 97 n. 37), who, however,
adds that it 'ought to be resisted'. Why? The text of 876-7 (and 892-4) has been
discussed at length by N. Van der Ben, Mnem. 21 (1968) 7-21.
28
A falling man cannot use his feet to counter, as we would say, the force of gravity.
Lattimore (PGT 48 n. 25), in a different context, has an interesting note on
avdyKT), in which he justifies himself for translating it 'nature' and 'natural force'
at Aesch. PV SHf. For a possible play on the name of Oedipus, see n. 26.
The fall of Oedipus 189
29
Denniston-Page have a useful note at Aesch. Agam. 757-62.
30
Fr. 5.9f. D (TIKT€I yap Kopos vfipw, orav noXvs oX/ios €irqrai \ avdpwnois onooois
fir) voos aprios •}). koros equalshubris: Pindar, Ol. 2.95; Isthm. 3.2; Aesch. Agam.
382. hubris breeds koros: Pindar, Ol. 13.10; Herodotus 8.77.1 (contr. 3.80.3).
31
'It is hubris that breeds a king' would be a ridiculously untrue generalization.
When Miiller, O T, 287, while retaining the received text, denies that rvpavvov has
a prejudicial sense and writes:'Wiirde der Eingang lauten vfipiv <f>vrev€irvpawis,
so ware der Sinn der gleiche', I fail to follow his argument. On this whole matter
see pp. I92ff. below (and n. 42).
32
Agam. 7501Y.
190 The fall of Oedipus
is in contrast (if not the most obvious contrast) with the spirit of
reverent purity. And we shall in fact find that arrogance and the reverse
of reverent purity are brought together in the third stanza. But the
tyrant (as such) is never mentioned again. There is a difficulty here -
and a possibility to consider. But it may be useful to turn first to the
end of the stanza, when, after describing the fall of hubris in non-poli-
tical terms, the Chorus returns to the political theme with a phrase (TO
KOLXWS €\OV TTOACI TTdXaiGfia) which demands interpretation. If we can
interpret it correctly, it may throw light on the stanza as a whole - and
indeed on all aspects of the ode.
There seem to be no really close parallels for palaisma in this
context. The word must at least imply a struggle, an effort; and it
should be a competitive effort. Not rivalry, perhaps, so much as
emulation. 33 Emulation is a characteristic Greek motive, avowable
and potentially beneficial to the state. 34 This emulous effort, if the
stanza is to have any coherence, must be something in which Oedipus
is engaged. The scholiast says: fjyovv T-T)V £rjrr]aiv rov <j>6vov rov Aatov
('the investigation of the murder of Laius'). Kamerbeek, in his dis-
cussion, 35 puts all the weight on this, as though the Chorus was
genuinely afraid that Oedipus might break off his search for the killers
of Laius. But after 859f. they cannot, surely, be preoccupied with such
a fear. If, however, this idea is too narrow for the context (as it seems
to be), it does not follow that it is irrelevant, since the quest on which
Oedipus is now engaged may well be taken as exemplifying his whole
conduct during his kingship. Ellendt explains the palaisma differently,
by reference to the wisdom through which Oedipus gained his
kingdom; 36 and this certainly is not to be excluded. His service to the
state began when he solved the riddle of the Sphinx, which he was
enabled to do by his superior cleverness, which is spoken of in
competitive terms. Oedipus himself, wrangling with Teiresias,
33
Does ndXaiofia in any way refer to the quarrel between Oedipus and Creon? Since
Creon neither seeks political power nor competes in services towards the state (cf.
584ff.), I had supposed not, but A. A. Long, Liverpool Classical Monthly 3 (1978)
49-53. has shown me the possibility that, in describing Oedipus' laudable activi-
ties, Sophocles used a word which normally refers to a struggle between parties
and so could recall the wrangle, harmful to the city, between him and Creon. TO
KOXWS €\ovt taking the stress of the sentence, could well imply its opposite.
34
Jebb cites Isocrates, Ep. 7.7 aptly.
35
On 879-80, 883, and in the general note on the Second Stasimon, p. 172.
36
'ndXatafia consilium intelligo, quo regnum adeptus Oedipus est; cuius imperium
cum salutare civitati fuerit, ut maneat, chorus precatur.'
The fall of Oedipus 191
which is also the only example quoted from Greek poetry by LSJ,
other than from Theognis, where the exception proves the rule, since
Theognis is writing, not of mythology, but of contemporary politics,
at a time when all monarchs in the Greek world were tyrants. 41
Everywhere else in the play (where the words occur frequently) and
in Greek tragedy as a whole, rvpavvos and rvpavvls mean 'king' and
'kingship'. Professor Bernard Knox has a long and interesting discus-
sion42 of the use of these words in this play. He argues that, since
Oedipus' position is ambiguous and his claim to the throne assailable,
the terms are themselves used to ambiguous effect. He could be right,
at least in some cases: it is certainly unnecessary for me to show that he
is wrong. For there is all the difference in the world between (i) using
rvpawos in the sense of 'king', with an added overtone suggestive of
the unconstitutional and the tyrannical, and (ii) in a play where it is
constantly a mere synonym for 'king', and contrary to the normal
usage of tragedy, using it, flatly and frankly, in the bad sense - not
king at all, but tyrant. I find it almost inconceivable that Sophocles has
done such a thing and doubtful whether, if he did, an audience of
tragedy would have jumped to this unexampled and anachronistic
meaning.
vfipw <f>vT€V€LTvpawls. If a serious difficulty is eliminated, what is
positively gained by making this correction? Three things. In the first
place, the statement now falls clearly into line with the immediate
context in terms of traditional thought. It is kotos that engenders
hubris (in the words of Solon), 'when great prosperity attends'. It is a
king above all who is attended by material prosperity, by wealth. The
notions go familiarly together and have been linked already in a
speech of Oedipus (a> TTAOUTC /ecu rvpavvi, 380). It is thus a small step
to say that kingship engenders hubris, glutting it with many
things — wealth, doubtless also the power which depends on wealth.
When it is glutted, it falls from the heights to the depths. Hubris, then,
41
The passages (823, 1181) should not in fact have been cited under this heading.
42
OTh 53-6. (For his interpretation of the passage in terms of Athenian imperia-
lism, see OTh i02f.) There are certainly passages in other Greek tragedies where
the context imports a sinister suggestion, notably in P. V., where Zeus is charac-
terized throughout as a tyrant. Cf. Page on Eur. Med. 348. But in itself the word
never means more than 'king'. Striking examples in our play, prior to the present
passage, are 380,4o8f. (which recalls 380 and is something which could not be said
under a tyranny) and, especially, 588; immediately following, we find 925, where
the word could carry irony, and 939, where it could not.
The fall of Oedipus 193
natural that the Chorus, when they have been singing about human
kings, who may abide in beneficial emulation, but may lapse into
hubris, should put their trust in a divine ruler. The divine ruler will,
they hope and pray, keep the good king good, but he will certainly
bring down the bad. The implied contrast between divine and human
rulers is taken up again in the last stanza, when the supreme ruler is
Zeus. But in the second strophe the Chorus reverts to the hubristic,
the arrogant, man. There is hardly a notion in the stanza which does
not relate to the facts about Oedipus. But in what relation?
44
A more detailed examination o f this stanza will be found in my JHS article (op.
cit. n. 1).
45
The strong stop is generally placed at the end of 891. The reason why this is
preferred to 888, despite the tense-structure and other considerations, is presum-
ably twofold, (i) Asyndeton between 888 and 889. This can be defended on the
grounds that the second sentence explains the epithet Svoirorfios (cf. Miiller, OT
276). (ii) The shift of subject. The subject of KepSavet, etc., seems at first to be the
TIS of 883, but turns out to be the ris . . . dvrfp of the apodosis, which is tantamount
to ovScts. Since, however, in both cases a hypothetical offender is in question, this
is hardly objectionable.
The fall of Oedipus 195
protasis and apodosis have a bearing upon Oedipus. (This is after all a
play about Oedipus and this ode a central feature of it.) The bearings
differ.
In the first sentence there are three counts against the hubristic man.
(i) He walks arrogantly in deed and word. 4 6 Arrogance in word must
be boasting. Did Oedipus boast? No, by Greek standards, he was not a
man of arrogant speech; in particular, he was not (like Ajax) over-
weening towards the gods, nor would he invite (like Creon in
Antigone) the great blows with which men pay for their great and
boastful words. Was Oedipus arrogant in deed, in a way which might
suggest that wealth and prosperity had gone to his head? So to act had
not been characteristic of this good king. 4 7 (ii) The man has no fear of
Justice (AIKCLS axj>6^rjros). Justice personified is an Aeschylean figure
of cardinal importance and the disregard of justice highly character-
istic of the offender in Aeschylus. 48 Was Oedipus unjust? Judging
rashly by appearances, he was in fact, though not by intention, unjust
to Creon: he intended to be just and, in the event, did not carry his
injustice into effect. 49 Was he afraid? Words of fear have already been
accumulated by Sophocles, for Oedipus now fears that he is liable to
punishment as the killer of Laius (towards whose exposure he had
prayed for the present help of avfi/xaxos AIKT}, 274^). But the justice
he has now begun to fear is merely a forerunner of the terrible justice
of time which convicts the unwitting offender (12136°.); and there is
again an accumulation of fear-words. 50 Oedipus has reason to
fear - and comes to fear - justice'. But no such fear would have saved
him from the unwitting acts which he committed, (iii) The man does
not reverence the seats of the gods. 5 1 But Oedipus went to Delphi,
which put him on the way to his destiny; he sent to Delphi, which put
him on the way to its discovery. It was the irony of circumstance
rather than traditional sin that caused Jocasta - and in a measure
46
On Dobree's vneporrXa (which could be right), cf.JHS 91 (1971) 128 n. 43.
47
But see p. 201 below.
48
E.g. Agam. 38iff., 77iff., after 763ff.; Eum. 533ff. For fear in Aeschylus, see de
Romilly, CA passim.
49
552f., 609, 614,683.
50
Cf. de Romilly, CA 72 n. 1 on 972ff. The agglomeration of such words in the
earlier passage (722, 728, 739, 745-7, 749, 767) is hardly less striking.
51
Jebb may insist too positively that cSrj refers to statues rather than to shrines (cf.
Kamerbeek ad loc). But the connection between the cult-statue and the temple is
so intimate that the distinction is not perhaps very material.
196 The fall of Oedipus
Oedipus — to doubt the oracle; and still Jocasta, ironically, will pray
to a statue of the Delphic god.
Of this offender, whose offences so far listed Oedipus does not
share, the Chorus sings: 'May an evil portion (fate, destiny) seize him
to itself (/ca/ca viv eXoiro /xotpa, 887). Not the most obvious way of
saying 'May he come to a bad end!'; and there must be a reason why
this way has been chosen. 52 We know that the moira of Oedipus was
one of unexampled evil; here an evil moira is invoked upon the
arrogant man in return for his pride, and destiny seems related to
merit. Was it so in the case of Oedipus?
The word for pride is x^V* anc ^ it is given the epithet 'ill-fated'
(SvoTTOTfjLos), which looks backward and forward. 53 It looks back to
the wish the Chorus has just expressed, but it also looks forward to the
following sentence, which explains it in terms not of moira but of
divine wrath. We have another conditional sentence, this time with
future tenses; and the gist of it is that no man who offends in certain
ways will escape punishment. The text of the apodosis is corrupt. 54
We can have some confidence, however, that the life of the offender is
threatened by 'bolts of wrath' or (more likely)'bolts of the gods' and
these he will not be able to boast of warding off. This must be, for, if
the gods honour such actions as his, what is the point of dancing in
their cult? The sequence of thought is clear.
The protasis amplifies the catalogue of offences, but with a signifi-
cant difference. Of the offences as expressed in the first sentence
52
Plato, Rep. 6i7d, reverses the use of aipeiadai - it is the man who chooses his
destiny. Cf. Anderson 49.
53
On x^V* m t n e sense of intellectual pride, see p. 203 below. If Svanor^ov did not
follow jjioipa, we should not perhaps look too closely into the meaning of the
word, accepting it as part of the vocabulary of misfortune. This word, fairly
common in Aeschylus and Sophocles, normally means 'ill-fated', of a person or
an event. Once perhaps in Sophocles (Phil. 1120) it means 'bringing an evil
destiny'. Here, is JJTOT/ZOS cause or effect? Does x^V a f i s e o u t ° £ o r bring about,
the 7roT/Lto9? Since an evil moira is prayed against the offender, and since the
offences of Oedipus arose out of an evil moira, the word may be used with a
calculated ambiguity.
54
cpfcrcu (after 890) is intolerable and Musgrave's evgerai a virtually certain
emendation. fteXq is certainly sound and, in this play, can hardly fail to refer,
directly or indirectly, to the bolts of Apollo (cf. 2ooff, esp. 2O3ff., 163,469). 0U/LU*>
is quite intractable; Bvfxov (the reading of some codd.) is just tolerable (and
accepted by Lloyd-Jones, JZ 194 n. 28); the writer who glossed with TI)I> 0€ta»>
8tK7)v may well have read dcwv or Beov. Da we obelizes, with Bewv in the app. crit.
(cf.STS 245).
The fall of Oedipus 197
to these oracles - that they fit. Zeus the master, if you are rightly so
called, lord of all, may it not be hidden from you and your immortal
rule! The old prophecies concerning Laius are fading; they leave them
out of account; and nowhere is Apollo manifest in his honours.
Religion is perishing.'
When the Chorus turn from the punishment of sin to the fulfil-
ment of oracles, the connection of thought is indirect, but perceptible.
The failure of oracles to be fulfilled is not indeed the same thing as the
failure of sinners to be punished, but both are seen as destructive of
religion, (ri Set fie xopevew is balanced at the end of the antistrophe by
eppei Sc ra 0€ia.)58 In fact neither failure occurs. Fulfilment of oracles
and punishment of the offender are both brought about by the
disastrous fall of Oedipus, but this is something not yet within the
vision of the Chorus.
The content of this stanza is, of all parts of the ode, most explicitly
related to the previous action — to the scepticism ofJocasta based, as it
was, upon the apparent non-fulfilment of the oracle given to Laius. It
is this oracle that is primarily in their minds, 59 though the oracle
given to Oedipus may also be in the background of their feeling, as
something unseizable, though sinister, with the threat of an awful
impurity. The themes of purity and piety (and their opposites) are
continued into this stanza by a careful choice of words. 60
The oracle of Delphi, naturally, comes first and is followed by
Abai, a neighbouring seat of Apollo. But Zeus is supreme, in pro-
phecy as in all else, 61 and Olympia also was a prophetic shrine. The
mention of Olympia leads up to a prayer to Zeus as supreme ruler of
the universe - a prayer which serves as climax to this climacteric ode.
Zeus is master (Kparvvcov), the lord of all (navr* avaoowv), and has an
immortal rule (apxav). But Oedipus too is a king, and all these words
are found also of the human ruler. The first words addressed to him
by the Priest of Zeus were: 'Oedipus, master of my land' (dAA* co
58
The first link is, however, between ri Set /Lie xopeueii/ and OVK€TI . . . efyu - both
religious activities.
59
rab* (902), cf. 9o6ff. See the commentaries of Jebb and Kamerbeek.
60
adiKTov, akfiuiv, both looking back to the strophe (886, 891), keep these notions in
circulation.
61
Cf. 498. For the idea of Apollo's prophecy as dependent upon Zeus, cf. Aesch.
Eum. 19, 616-18. And this is the point, for the oracle of Zeus at Olympia in the
fifth century was of mainly local importance (cf. H. W. Parke, The oracles of Zeus
(Oxford 1967) 186).
The fall of Oedipus 199
66
A persistent and highly Sophoclean theme. The use of words of sight and
appearance in this play deserves a careful detailed study, which would reinforce
Reinhardt's interpretation in terms of the contrast between appearance and
reality.
The fall of Oedipus 201
It is clear that, in the Second Stasimon, the first stanza was evoked
by the suggestions of impurity and impiety that had gathered about
Oedipus in the preceding scene; it is equally clear that the last stanza
expresses not so much their disapproval ofjocasta's scepticism as their
distress of mind at the evidence which seemed to justify it. But why,
in the central stanzas, do they sing of hubris and its fall? What, in their
minds, is the relationship of what they sing to Oedipus and to the
dramatic situation? They know that he may be the killer of Laius:
Teiresias had said that he was (362) and Oedipus now fears that he
may be. But the motive of Oedipus in killing Laius (if he did kill him)
can hardly come in question, since they have no reason to doubt his
story of the encounter; he did not kill the king to gain his throne,
which he acquired quite otherwise. Some interpreters have argued
that the act of Oedipus was, nevertheless, hubristic in its wholesale
violence. One may doubt whether the conventional Greeks of the
Chorus would have seen it in that light and not (as Oedipus presents it
in the Coloneus) as a justified act of retaliation, indeed of self-defence
by a man who found himself one among many and in danger of his
life.67 In any case, even if it were, in the eyes of some, hubristic, this
was not the hubris bred of koros about which they sing; it was the act of
an exile, not a king. The theme must therefore stem from a different
connection of thought. This connection is far more likely to have
been, what has often been suggested, the conduct of Oedipus towards
Teiresias and, especially, towards Creon, which was disquieting, just
as the suggestions of impiety and impurity were disquieting.68 Thus
the second stanza reacts to the first half of the episode, as the first
stanza reacts to the second half. Oedipus is a king, enjoying all the
proverbial advantages of kingship. (Once more the sense is improved
by reading vfipiv (frvrevei rvpavvls.) Is he showing signs, by abusing
his power, that they have bred hubris in him? If so, it will inevitably
67
There are really two issues: whether Oedipus was culpable, and whether this is
what the Chorus had in mind; and opinions will probably continue to be divided
on both. (For a formidable catalogue raisonne of views see D. A. Hester, 'Oedipus
and Jonah', PCPS 23 (1977) 32-61.) Adverse judgements will be found, e.g. in
Knox, OTh. $j{.; Cameron 13iff.; A. D. Fitton Brown, CR n.s. 19 (1969) 308,
who makes the point that Laius was on a sacred embassy accompanied by a herald.
Contr. J. T. Sheppard xxviiif.; Bowra 193; Kitto Poiesis 2O2f. Impetuous father
meets impetuous son - the irony is obvious. The tragic implications of retaliation
are not drawn in this play but in the Coloneus (cf.JHS 74 (1954) I7f. and pp. 26orT.
below).
68
C f Gould (1) 594-9.
202 The fall of Oedipus
lead to disaster. Yet they know him as a king who strives for the
common weal: may the gods cause this to continue! In their perplex-
ity they put their faith in the protector god. With the third stanza,
they return to the theme of hubris and expatiate upon it. If a man acts
hubristically, may he suffer an evil destiny! If he does so act, he must
suffer at the hands of the gods or religion is at an end. At this point,
perhaps, the thread of thought binding their words to the dramatic
situation has become more tenuous, as they expound a theological
doctrine. If they are thinking of Oedipus at all, they cannot be saying:
* Why worship the gods, unless Oedipus comes to a disastrous end?'; at
the most it can be a feeling rather than a thought — a feeling governed
by all the sources of disquietude - that, if Oedipus becomes hubristic,
then he must fall or religion must fail. But in fact they have been made
to give, proleptically, an explanation of the fall of Oedipus. And it is
the wrong explanation.
It is shown to be the wrong explanation by an elaborate chain of
ironies, to which attention has been called already. The Chorus is
afraid that Oedipus may abuse his royal power and suffer disaster, but
disaster comes upon him through things done before ever he became
king, and things not done out of hubris. They pray the god not to put
an end to his striving for the common good, but this striving leads
only towards the disaster. They place their trust in a divine champion,
but it is Apollo prostaterios who presides over the downfall of
Oedipus. They characterize the arrogant man in terms of traditional
excesses, impurities and impieties; they call for an evil destiny upon
him and say that, if he is not struck down by the bolts of divine wrath,
there is no point in their religious observances. Oedipus is not that
kind of man at all: yet he is caught by an evil moira, he does not escape
the bolts of Apollo (just as he does fall from the heights and accelerate
his own fall). He does not escape divine justice, since he has done
deeds69 which were impure and impious; and to do such deeds was in
fact his evil moira.
It was the wrong explanation: yet it was a possible, a plausible, and
a religious, explanation; and it is given in terms of traditional Greek
religious notions. It is given in terms which find parallels in Aes-
chylus. Dare we say that it is an Aeschylean explanation? The rela-
tionship in Aeschylus between the evil destiny of a character and his
willed actions is not altogether simple; it was a problem which
69
K95 (TTpa&ts): it is the deed that counts, not the motive.
The fall of Oedipus 203
exercised the poet from the Persae to the Oresteia. But if one thing is
clear, it is that characters collaborate in their own downfall by their
own wicked acts. One may look vainly in extant Aeschylus for a
divine world which ordains not only the punishment of deliberate
sin, but punishment of the unwitting sinner whose punishable acts are
part of his destiny from the beginning and are performed in utter
innocence. This is what Sophocles gives us in the Oedipus Tyrannus. It
is likely (though it is perhaps futile to say so) that, if we possessed the
Oedipus of Aeschylus, we' should see a very different hero — a culpable
hero who in some way (which we cannot specify) contributed to his
own downfall. 70 It is surely not unlikely that Sophocles wrote his
play — and wrote this ode — with the Aeschylean treatment of
Oedipus in mind.
An innocent Oedipus. But was he innocent of intellectual pride?
That sort of pride was of course the last thing that this traditional
moralizing Chorus will have had in mind — the last thing they will
have meant, when they spoke of XAISTJ. The Homeric and archaic
worlds knew well that men could be overconfident and, in their
confidence, blind to the truth about human status and its relation to
the divine government of human affairs. But these were worlds
which did not prize intelligence unduly. An arrogant confidence in
the sufficiency of human intellect was characteristic, rather, of the
fifth century. If there is any sense in which Oedipus is arrogant, his
pride is intellectual, not moral. He has too much pride in his keen
intelligence: what he must learn - and teach - is that he has been
wrong again and again. 71 Which is ironical. The lavish - the almost
intolerable — irony of Oedipus Tyrannus is justified by this — that the
most intelligent of men can be so wrong, that the man who read the
riddle of the Sphinx cannot read the riddle of his own appalling
destiny.
The acts which drew down on Oedipus the wrath of the gods were
not done in pride of any kind, but in simple ignorance. Is there then
any moral in his fate? Is there any lesson to be drawn? Yes, if it is
70
There are strong hints in the Septem (733, 771, 950) that wealth and luxury may
have been significant themes in the earlier plays of the Aeschylean trilogy. Cf
YCS 25 (1977) 33f.
71
This theme has been adequately treated by many writers. O'Brien (8) has recently
pointed out that the only quality of Oedipus 'that becomes a major issue is his
intelligence' and suggests (10) that, if we are looking for a simple formula, we
cannot do better than 'a man matches wits with the gods'.
204 The fall of Oedipus
salutary for men to realize the fragility of human fortunes and the vast
sea of ignorance in which they swim. No, if it is meant that Oedipus
should have been something other than himself, without the keen
energies and the thrusting intelligence which made him great; that he
should have been a man like Creon, who always thinks before he
speaks and then says less than he means, who is content, parasitically,
to enjoy the fruits without the risks of power, a cautious man. 72
Those who consider that Sophocles was the prophet of sophrosune
should contemplate a world of Creons and wonder whether it would
be any place for a tragic poet. There are morals no doubt for those
who have the skill to draw them, and there are tragic facts — such
tragic facts as the innocence and guilt, the intelligence and blindness,
the greatness and weakness, of Oedipus, ri Set [x€xopeveiv; There was
every reason.
72
I have been led into an intemperate judgement upon Creon (who was a good man
and behaves generously at the end of the play) by a certain exasperation at those
who (almost) make him the hero of the play. O f course, in our prosaic lives, we
shall be lucky if we behave as well as he did: as to greatness, we do not aspire to it
any more than he. O'Brien (14) has a brief well-balanced statement, calling
proper attention to 584ff.-which is an excellent example of how a rhetorical
commonplace, a piece of dianoia, can be used to make an important dramatic
point. Cf. also Gellie 81, 87, ioif.
CHAPTER NINE
Furies in Sophocles
clarity of form and conception upon them. 7 To what extent his great
trilogy changed the way in which the ordinary Greek saw Erinyes/
Eumenides we are not in a position to determine, but Sophocles was a
tragic poet, never unaware of the work of his great predecessor, least
of all in this context (where nearly every Sophoclean reference to
Erinyes wakes an echo of Aeschylus); well aware indeed that Aes-
chylus had made out of these frightening demons a great symbol of
tragic process, better aware than many modern critics that this was
one of his greatest contributions to tragic thought. So at least I shall
argue. It is thus important to identify the main features of the
Aeschylean conception as known to us from Oresteia and, in a lesser
degree, from Septem. They can be catalogued as follows.
(i) Erinyes are agents of punishment, called into operation by
offences in some area with which the gods are particularly con-
cerned.8 It was by the sending of Zeus Xenios that an Erinys came
against the Priamids for a breach of hospitality.9 It was for a breach of
filial duty that Oedipus cursed his sons with a curse which had the
force of an Erinys. But the Erinyes, themselves chthonian, had a
special association with the world of the dead, itself powerfully
numinous, and a role to avenge those who had been violently slain. So
persistent is this association that a view was once popular which saw
these goddesses as in effect the vengeful dead themselves within the
earth making their power felt to retaliate upon the killer. KArai is one
of their names, are they not embodiments of a dying curse? This view
has now been generally abandoned, largely because it does not fit the
Homeric evidence.10 In tragedy, however, so much concerned with
7
In some cults Erinyes were horses or horse-like creatures. Horses were no use to
Aeschylus: he wanted hounds and, for his chorus, hounds in quasi-human form.
How much his description of them (and the costume which went with it) - black-
robed, filthy, snake-entwined, with oozing eyes - and his account of their vam-
pirish methods owed to earlier conceptions can hardly now be determined.
8
The interests of the Erinyes are clearly related, though not exclusively linked, to
the great traditional commandments - to honour gods, parents and strangers, on
which cf. G. Thomson (ed.), The Oresteia of Aeschylus (Cambridge 1938) 1 5 if, 11
2691!., 3621T.; Ehrenberg 1671!.
9
Agam. 581T., 747ff.
10
Reviewed by Wiist (loc. cit. n. 6). Among more than a dozen references to an
Erinys, very few are connected with death, still fewer with deliberate murder.
They are in some cases connected with a curse, but there is more than one reason
for cursing. The range covered is wide: for instance, a mother's curse (four times),
a father's curse, disregard of primogeniture, the breaking of an oath, a breach of
natural law (the horse Xanthus who spoke). Cf. Dodds, G/ 21 n. 37.
208 Furies in Sophocles
seits, nur zwei Seiten derselben Sache sind'. R. Bultmann, 'Polis und Hades in der
Antigone des Sophokles', Glauben und Verstehen (Tubingen 1952) 11 20-31
(reprinted in Wege der Forschung 45 (Darmstadt 1967) 311-24), who is cited by
Miiller and criticized by Knox (Gnomon 40 (1968) 748), has something similar to
say, but goes too far when he describes Hades as 'die Macht, aus der echtes Recht
entspringt, und durch die alles menschlich-gesetzliche Recht relativiert wird' (p.
314). I had rather say that divine punitive justice, as known to us from Aeschylus,
had deep roots in the frightening chthonian world and owed its problematic
character partly to this fact.
22
For the net, cf. e.g. Agam. 1382, 1580; Cho. 492f. For Erinyes drinking blood, cf.
Eunt. 264ff. and Pearson's note on Soph. fr. 743. The point is made by Perrotta 519
n. 1. See also ch. 10 p. 233, on Soph. El. 785^
23
Cf. Kitto, Poiesis 176.
Furies in Sophocles 213
fulfilling the prayer of Hyllus, then the entry of the dying Heracles in
the Shirt of Nessus, that 'woven net of the Erinyes'. The fate of
Heracles is, like Agamemnon's, the direct result of his own beha-
viour. That the agent of his punishment is not a virago retaliating, but
an exceedingly feminine woman desperately trying to retrieve her
position — and destroying herself in the process — is a stroke of
Sophoclean irony.
This ironic contrast may in itself have been a reason why Sophocles
chose to stress the parallel between Deianira and Clytemnestra, 24 but
I would suggest that he also wished to deploy certain ideas, about
Zeus and the Erinyes, which Aeschylus had developed in Oresteia and
make them contribute to the significance of his play. If these three
references to Erinyes, closely linked to one another though they are,
stood alone, perhaps they could not bear too great a weight of
interpretation. But they do not stand alone.
Heracles reaps the consequences of his actions. N o w we have
already seen 25 that the qualities which led to his downfall were bound
up with the qualities which had made possible his great achievements.
His whole career had been one of violence, his reaction to every
situation the ruthless use of force; his one moral principle was retalia-
tion, what he called punishing the bad (KCLKOVS . . . iTeiadix-qv, n i l ) . 2 6
To this principle fall victims not only noxious monsters, not only the
24
This is well brought out by T. B. L. Webster in Greek poetry and life (ed. Cyril
Bailey et al., Oxford 1936) 177; cf. also Bowra I39f.; Segal, YCS 156.
25
See p. 89 above.
26
With 1111 we should surely compare 2741T. Zeus was angry that Heracles killed
Iphitus treacherously: cl yap €fi<f>avws rjfjLvvaro | Zevs rav avveyvw £vv 81*17
X€ipovfi€va)'I vfipiv yap ov aripyovaw ovhk Saifioves. The hubris is that of Iphitus
and his family, and the notion is continued in 281 (v7T€px^ovr€Sc* y\(boor)s
KaKrjs). rffxvvaTo does not of course imply self-defence against a violent physical
attack: Jebb, in his note, is right to translate it 'avenged himself and to add 'the
vppis of Eurytus would have justified Heracles in challenging Iphitus to open
combat'. This was the Heraclean code, and Lichas (who mixes truth with lies, c£.
App. B ) sees it as endorsed by Zeus. Just because he is (sometimes) a liar, it would
be rash to disregard as subterfuge the impressive statements about Zeus that
Sophocles has put into his mouth, though we have the difficult task of interpret-
ing them. If Zeus administers his own harsh retaliatory justice, it may be crude,
but not without some symbolic truth, to say that he sympathizes (aweyvw) with
those mortals who act by the lex talionis. One is tempted to link the use of avveyvw
here, with Hyllus' final comment on the avyyvwfioavvrj of men, the ayvwfioavvrj
of the gods. What Hyllus could not see was that the justice meted to Heracles by
the gods was the same kind of justice he had spent his life in meting to men and
monsters.
214 Furies in Sophocles
treacherous Nessus, but Iphitus and the innocent Lichas; and in his
agony he called upon his son to help him in retaliating with physical
violence upon Deianira. In two of the most unpleasant lines in Greek
tragedy, he speaks of spoiling her beauty as his own strength had been
spoiled; and the theme is stressed by repetition (io66ff., i ioyff.).27 He
makes indeed a whole series of outrageous demands upon his son
which have this in common, that each of them would entail a
continuance of evil after his death. First, Hyllus is to participate in the
torturing and killing of his mother: from the fate of Orestes (and
Alcmaeon) he is saved by the facts of the case. Secondly, he is to burn
his father alive, which, as he sees (i2o6f.), would involve a terrible
pollution.28 From this he is allowed to escape by a compromise; and
attention is thus focused upon the third demand which Heracles
thinks so trivial, but to which Sophocles devotes more space than to
either of its predecessors. Hyllus is to take Iole to his bed. In horror he
exclaims: * Who could choose such a course, if he were not driven sick
by avenging spirits?' (oons firj *£ aXaaropwv voooi, 1235).29 Hyllus
has no choice, but the power which forces this upon him (and
destroys his future happiness) is in the nature of an alastor. If aXaarwp
is a word of the Erinys-connection, so too is rraXaiivaios (1207); so
above all are apaios (1202) and detov apd (1239). A father's curse,
whether it is that of Oedipus or of Heracles, has the force of an Erinys,
and that is the threat which Heracles brings to bear upon his son.
I would suggest, therefore, that the notion of Erinyes, first intro-
duced at 809, broods over the closing phases of the play. If that is so,
there are three divine powers to be considered30 - not only Kypris,
not only Zeus, but also the Erinyes; and Heracles stands in close
relation to them all. He acts and suffers for his actions under the
influence of Kypris. He is the son of Zeus, but this cannot save him
from the justice of Zeus. He is punished by an Erinys, but shows a
27
'Perhaps the most savage passage in Greek tragedy' (Kamerbeek). The structure
of io68f. is worth observing. In the mind of Heracles the words kv 81*77
KaKovfA.€vov are appropriate to Deianira only, and he associates retributive justice
with her alone. But the balance of the sentence compels us to take, not only
Xwprjrov elSos, but also the concluding words with rov^iov as well as with K€ivrjs.
Heracles had described himself as the victim of an Erinys without realizing the
implications of what he said.
28
He will be naXafipalos if he does, apaios if he does not. On the text of Track.
1206-9 cf. B1CS 16 (1969) 47f.
29
See ch. 4 n. 39.
30
See p. 88 above.
Furies in Sophocles 215
For the second time we come back, rightly, to this Oedipus. I have
suggested that the two Sophoclean tragedies most closely concerned
with Erinyes are Electra and the Coloneus. They are relatively late
plays, and it could be that towards the end of his career Sophocles had
given new and deep thought to his predecessor's Oresteia; it could
even be that this had been stimulated by a revival of the trilogy, in
whole or in part, which may - or may not — have taken place in the
31
It will be argued below that it is characteristic of several Sophoclean heroes to be
at once victim and agent of the Furies.
32
O n the god-like characteristics of this Heracles, see Bowra 136.
33
Critical opinion is sharply divided on this point: cf. Knox, AJP 92 (1971) 695;
Lloyd-Jones, JZ 1271".; Segal, YCS I38flf. It seems not unlikely that an audience,
reminded by the impressive description of the pyre (1195-9), might think of the
apotheosis, when Hyllus speaks of ra fieXXovra (1270). O n the other hand,
Heracles himself envisages a descent to the world of the dead (i2Oif). If there is a
hint, it is singularly lacking in emphasis. Why then introduce it at all? Yet it seems
to be rather characteristic of Sophocles to introduce, without developing, such a
hint towards the end of a play. The most unmistakable - and significant - exam-
ple is the foreshadowing of the /"Ififj^one-situation at the end of the O.C. (see pp.
274f. below). But the closest parallel is EL 1498, also with fieXXovra. Sophocles did
not wish to treat Electra's story in terms of the pursuit by Furies of Orestes (see pp.
226f. below), but hints at it there. N o more did he wish to treat the story of
Heracles in terms of apotheosis, despite the kinship of Heracles to the gods. There
may have been several reasons for this, and one of them might be that, through
the pyre, he became an Olympian god, fit to play his role in the Philoctetes, and
not, like Oedipus, a heros.
216 Furies in Sophocles
last quarter of the century. 34 This cannot be asserted; and our exa-
mination of earlier plays may suggest that these notions had long been
influential in the mind of Sophocles. What right indeed have we to
assert that these two later plays are in fact particularly concerned with
the Erinyes? In Oedipus Coloneus they are mentioned only twice, in a
single scene towards the end of the play. But Erinyes is not their only
name: it is to a grove of the Eumenides that Oedipus has come and
past which he goes to his final rest. In the first scene and the last the
sense of locality is strong, but throughout the play an audience must
be aware of the proximity of these ambivalent divinities. Yet inter-
preters have seldom given due weight to the Eumenides/Erinyes in
interpreting the play. What, then, of Electra? Has it not been stated
again and again that the Sophoclean treatment of the matricide differs
from the Aeschylean precisely because Sophocles left the Furies out of
account? Nothing could be farther from the truth.
34
On a possible revival of Choephori in the late 420s, d. H. J. Newiger, Hermes 89
(1961) ff
CHAPTER TEN
Electra
hand, and on the other Aeschylus (and Euripides and the tradition as a
whole), that there is nothing in Sophocles about a pursuit of Orestes
by the Erinyes of his mother. He is accordingly said to have 4omitted
the Furies'.4 This is not literally true. The word Erinys occurs four
times in the play. At 112 Electra prays, among other chthonian
powers, to the Erinyes; at 276 she states that Clytemnestra, when she
sleeps with Aegisthus, fears no Erinys.5 At 491 the Chorus sings of the
coming of the Erinys; at 1080 that Electra is prepared to die 'when she
has destroyed the two-fold Erinys' {hihvyiav iXova' 'Epivvv) - a
remark which could have interesting implications. 6 Furthermore, a
reference to Erinyes is universally admitted at 1388, in a short ode full
of Aeschylean echoes, where the Chorus describes the avengers as
'inescapable hounds'. 7 Now, if Sophocles had wished to write a
supposedly Homeric version of the story or otherwise to by-pass the
moral issue, he should scrupulously have avoided a theme so closely
associated by his predecessor with the blood-guilt of Orestes. By
using this theme, as by all the reminiscences of the Oresteia, he insists,
on the contrary, upon placing himself in a relationship to Aeschylus
and thus himself raises the question: Did he accept or reject or modify
the standpoint of the earlier dramatist?8 This would be true, if the
above-mentioned passages stood alone. I shall endeavour to show that
the theme of Erinyes is in fact developed by Sophocles in close
relation to the thought of Aeschylus and to argue that it is of
fundamental importance in the interpretation of his play. (For the
Aeschylean concept of the Erinyes I refer the reader to the previous
chapter.) It will be convenient to begin with the First Stasimon
(472ff.).
will come, and the antistrophe says: an (the) Erinys will come (475f.,
489ff.). The shift from Justice to Erinys is mediated by a reference to
the dead Agamemnon who does not forget (and the Aeschylean
Erinyes are mnemones). That the Erinys is described (rather unexpec-
tedly) as 'many-handed, many-footed' could be intended to remind
us that she will work through a plurality of human agents, already in
ambush. The theme of the first two stanzas, then, is justice carried out
by an Erinys or Erinyes who are evoked by the resentment of the dead
Agamemnon and embodied in the avenging son and his helpers. It is
the Erinys that suggests the theme of the Epode. For it is characteristic
of Fury-justice that it tends to involve a succession of troubles (TTOVOI),
and so, since the curse of Myrtilus (implied, not mentioned), the
descendants of Pelops had been Fury-haunted, sorrow and outrage
have never yet left the house, ov TL nw <E\LTT€V: can this fail to prompt
the question whether the succession of sorrows will stop now? 10 To
this there could be more than one answer, but the question must be
asked.
This is, then, an. ode about Fury-justice. It is preceded by Chryso-
themis saying that it is not sensible for two people to wrangle about
4
the just' (TO SL'KCLIOV, 466) and followed by a wrangle between Electra
and Clytemnestra as to where justice lies. 11
Everything which has been said about the rhetorical character of
this exchange is true or at least contains an important element of
truth. 12 A comparison with the notorious 'forensic' debates in Euri-
pides is not unfair, though it should not be pressed too hard, since
Sophocles, as we might expect, handles the now fashionable form
the tie binding blood-relations was more sacred still (en)?17 To kill a
mother: justly or not, will that be an honourable thing to avow?
We turn to 577ff. Granted the worst interpretation of Agamem-
non's action, was it right that he should die at Clytemnestra's hand?
'By what kind of law? Take care lest, in making this law for men, you
make trouble for yourself and a change of heart. For, if we are to kill
one in return for another, you (I say) would be the first to die, should
you meet with justice.' What kind of law? This question too is easily
answered. It is the law of retaliation; the law proclaimed by the
Chorus of Libation-bearers (Cho. 4ooff.);18 the law which the Erinyes
administer, on which Electra and Orestes intend to act, and under
which, if the law is generally valid, they will themselves be liable to
retaliation.19
By making Electra use arguments to which she is not entitled,
Sophocles keeps alive the Erinys-theme with which the preceding
chorus dealt. But this is far from being the sole relevance of Erinyes to
this debate.
In Clytemnestra's speech lines 528—51 form a self-contained whole
— her argument about justice. 'Justice slew him, not I alone; and you
should have helped Justice, had you been right-minded' (el <f>povova*
eTvyxaves, 528f). Then, at the end (ring-composition): 'If you think I
am wrong-headed, wait till you get right judgement before you
criticize your neighbour' (<f>pov€iv KCLKCJS, yvcjjxrjv hiKaiav, 55of). She
speaks as if there were a right and a wrong conception of justice in this
case. Her view is right, and Electra would see it as right, if she were not
wrong-headed - if, as we might put it, she were open to argument.
But she is not. Nevertheless, she affects to meet Clytemnestra on
17
Johansen, C&M i8f. It could be that Sophocles has underlined the point with a
curious piece of language, nari'pa <f>r)s Kreivai 'You say you killed Father.' So
translated, it sounds natural enough in English, but as a piece of Greek it invites
Jebb's note: "The sense ofrrarepa is relative to the speaker, and not (as would be
more natural) to the subject of <f>rjs.' A sign of Electra's obsession? Perhaps: but is it
not possible that the reference to killing a father might suggest the killing of a
mother? The suggestion is not to be pressed.
18
Seech. 7, n. 15.
19
'Electra alia legge del taglione non crede' (Perrotta 310). Did she not, when she
sang 245 ff.? This is mere rhetoric, like her affectation that Clytemnestra is laying
down a new law. Cf. Linforth (1963) 98. Whitman is nearer the truth when he says
(157) that 'Electra seems to condemn the law of blood for blood while her actions
confirm it', though his explanation is unnecessarily complicated. As Gellie says
( n o ) , this is 'an awkward principle for a person intent on murder'.
222 Electra
herself with words, KCLKIOS Aeyo) KCLKCOS KAVGVOOL: the process is reci-
procal and potentially infinite, just as the succession of retaliatory
deeds is potentially infinite. What we have, then, in this scene is the
Furies at work upon the plane of speech. Does this seem far-fetched?
Then turn to the great statement of the lex talionis at Choephori 3O9ff.,
to the debt which Justice exacts and the suffering which the doer must
endure, to the fiev and the Sc: 'In return for a word of hatred let a
word of hatred be brought about (avrl /xev ixOp&s yXcoaarjg ixOpa
yXcooaa TeXeiadcv) . . . In return for a bloody blow let him pay a
bloody blow.' As constantly in Greek literature, word balances deed.
The tragic process of retaliation has its double aspect.
Of this process Electra in her calmer moments is aware. 23 Such a
moment is represented by her speech at 6i6ff., which provides a
general comment on the preceding wrangle. Though you may not
think it, know that I am ashamed of these things. I am aware that my
behaviour is improper and unbecoming to me. But the fact is that
your hostility and^your actions compel me perforce to act as I do. It is
by shameful acts that shameful acts are taught.' The choice of words
(i^avayKd^et . . . j3ta) is notable, if only because Electra echoes here
what she had already said in answer to the friendly criticisms of the
Chorus.
We turn back to the long speech of Electra which follows the
Parodos (254-309). It begins and ends on the same note. 'I am
ashamed, ladies, if you think by reason of my much lamenting that I
take things too hard. But you must bear with me, since a violent force
compels me to act so' (dAA' rj j8ia yap TCLVT* dvay/cd^ci /xe hpdv
avyyvcore, 254-7). She goes on to describe all the outrageous circum-
stances of her life within the palace. She ends her speech with these
words: 'In such a case neither moderation nor piety is possible' (iv ovv
TOLOVTOIS OVT€ G(X)<f>pOV€lVt <f>tXai, | OUT* €VG€^€LV 7T0Lp€GTLv), ' b u t i n t h e
midst of evils one is utterly bound to follow evil ways' (dAA* iv TOIS
KOLKOIS I TTOXXTJ yor* avdyKrj KaTTiTTjoeveiv KaKa). W h i c h is j u s t a
different way of saying that shameful acts are taught by shameful acts
dissimilar (see p. 252 below). It has often been pointed out that in our play the
tragic hero takes no action which directly influences events (cf. Perrotta 331;
Segal, TAP A 532; Ronnet 205-7), but, in view of the function of words in the
retaliatory process, perhaps one should not lay too much stress on the 'passivity' of
Electra.
23
Having made Clytemnestra angry, she becomes calmer herself?
224 Electra
24
Cf. 221 (8etV ev Seivois rjvayKdaSrjv - or whatever one should read).
25
86-120 are not strictly a monody, but include passages in sung anapaests, along
with (for the most part) 'recitative' anapaests. Cf. Kamerbeek on 86-120. For an
examination of the Parodos see App. D.
26
O n 157 Jebb justly remarks that *£<o€i has more point when it is remembered that
one sister had perished*. Why has Sophocles resurrected the epic Iphianassa as a
living sister only to re-inter her at once? Can he have had any other motive than,
by the similarity of names, to remind the audience of Iphigenia? For a different
view see A. D. Fitton Brown, PCPS 12 (1966) 2of.
Electra 225
They are all involved in a central situation; they are all in some sort of
relationship to Electra. They are all members or adherents of the
Pelopid house; and the play is framed between a description of the
palace as poluphthoron (10) and a reference to the ills of the Pelopidae,
present and to come, which the palace must see. The Chorus ends the
First Stasimon by singing of poluponos aikeia which has never left the
house. Within the house have been living Electra and Chrysothemis
36
Segal, TAPA 476.
37
Perrotta in particular has argued most forcefully for the view that ideas are
unimportant, the character of Electra all-important, in the play.
Electra 229
38
Ronnet208f.
39
Cf. Kells 81 (on 23-38). Woodard (1) i6s£. speaks of *a mind that exists only in
external action, and only for external action'.
40
If we accept the traditional attributions of 8of. to Orestes and 82-5 to the
Paedagogus, we must say that it is the latter who refuses to allow the former to
respond to human feeling and shall compare his more brutal interruption at 1326.
(Cf. Reinhardt 15 if.) Recently, however, F. H. Sandbach has argued powerfully
(PCPS 23 (1977) 71-3) that 8of. belong to the Paedagogus and 82-5 to Orestes. I
find his argument irresistible.
41
On this scene see Perrotta 3531T.; H. Diller, Gottliches und menschliches Wissen hex
Sophokles (Kiel 1950) 7f.; F. Solmsen, Electra and Orestes: three recognitions in Greek
tragedy (Amsterdam 1967) 25f.
42
Adams 78; Bowra 2496°. Contr. Linforth (1963) 107 n. 4; Ronnet 214 n. 2; Gellie
I22f. See also Segal, TAPA 513-15.
43
Unless in the epode ri firj norjaa}; (1276) and ri /xi)v ov; (1280) rank as singing. I
take it that Orestes declaimed rather than sang his trimeters. (On similar pheno-
mena in late Euripidean Recognition Duos see A. M. Dale in her edition of
Euripides' Helen (Oxford 1967) p. 106.)
230 Electra
and practical. Electra's joy has flowered only to wither in the cold
wind of a vindictive killing.44 'Strike twice, if you can.' 45
Orestes the exile erupts into a life of which he has not been part: 46
how he lived from the time of his father's murder to the time of his
return is, dramatically, blank. Not so the life which Electra led in the
company of Clytemnestra and Chrysothemis, under the rule of
Aegisthus, and which made her what she is. 'I am used to her words',
says Chrysothemis (372f.). 'You will not say that I began it this time',
says Electra to her mother (552f). The revelation of Electra's state of
mind, which is begun with such poignancy and pathos in the Parodos,
is carried forward in her long speech which follows (254ff), which
has all the importance that speeches so placed tend to have in Sopho-
cles. Set between words of compulsion (dvay/ca^ci and avdyKrj), we
have a picture of her life. Her lyrics in the Parodos were dominated by
the thought of her dead father, and here she begins by speaking of'a
father's woes' (258), and of course he is in the background of her
thought and feeling throughout, but now in the foreground stand her
mother and Aegisthus. Her mother hates her (26if.). Aegisthus sits on
her father's throne, wears his robes, pours libations at the hearth
where he killed him. The final outrage: he is in her father's bed
sleeping with a mother who does not deserve the name (kv KOITTJ
irarpos . • • rcoSeGvyKOLyajj^ievrjv). So brazen is she that she has
intercourse with the defiler, 'fearing no Erinys' (275^).
44
Ronnet 222: 'liberee du malheur, ellc reste prisonniere dc sa haine'. On 1309-11
see Segal, TAP A 5O4f. This has rightly been taken to refer to Electra's mask of
sadness which could not be changed in mid-play. A concession to realism? Cf.
Arethusa 2 (1969) 130. It would perhaps be characteristic of Sophocles, in making
such a concession, to derive dramatic profit from it. Electra's hatred is engrained
in her and remains uppermost in the closing scene. Cf. Gellie 122.
45
Linforth's suggestion (109 n. 5) that these words (1415) are addressed to Clytem-
nestra must be rejected, not least because they are immediately followed by her
o)fjioi fxdX* aifdis (the two blows being of course Aeschylean, A%am. 1343^). See
Kells ad loc.
I say nothing in the text about 1487^ (Electra on the burial of Aegisthus), which
have become a matter of controversy. With Jebb, Kaibel and many others (e.g.
Kitto; Ronnet 212 n. 2), as against e.g. Bowra 255; Knox, JHS 88 (1968) 157;
Johansen, C&M 28 n. 34,1 believe that the 'buriers' she has in mind are dogs and
birds. Quite apart from the possible reference to Od. 3.259^, I cannot see why
Sophocles should have brought in the burial of Aegisthus at all - with specific
mention of'buriers' - unless he, the writer ofAjax and Antigone, meant to suggest
what the scholiast thought he did. Cf. Gellie 291 n. 25. None of Knox's objections
strikes me as really cogent: of course it depends on whether we think Electra's
hatred capable of such an action.
46
Cf. Whitman 155. We hear nothing (apart from 602) of that common theme
- the miseries of exile. See also App. D p. 336.
Electra 231
47
Little is said on this score by most interpreters, but cf. John Jones 149-53; Segal,
TAPA 493f.
48
See App. G p. 342.
49
O n the whole I should prefer not to use the term 'neurotic' of Electra as some
writers have done: I feel it is both lacking in precision and provocative!
50
There may be a notion similar to that o f O.T. 82if., where Oedipus sees a
pollution in sleeping with the widow of the man he has killed.
51
The language of 492ff. is fruitfully examined by Long I36ff. See also Segal,
TAPA 494.
52
Does this go too far? Jones (149) certainly goes too far in the other direction, when
he says that the Greeks believed 'the Furies exercised a general jurisdiction over
wrongdoing within the family - over sexual offences as well as crimes o f blood'.
Wiist, PW Suppl. viii, s.v. Erinys, cites no instance of Erinyes punishing 'Ehe-
bruch' prior to our play: his other references are to Quintus Smyrnaeus and Ovid.
232 Electra
but the Erinyes went against Paris and Troy, not because of adultery,
but because of a breach of hospitality. For Electra - and presumably
for Sophocles - breach of marital relationship has become one of
those crimes which evoke the Fury-process. And since such crimes
tend to generate their own punishment through the resentment they
cause, it may not be too far-fetched to see the virginal Electra as an
appropriate agent for punishing the unchastity of Clytemnestra.
Clytemnestra is a wicked woman; and it is commonly held that
Sophocles has made her so bad in order to palliate the matricide.
There are indeed melodramatically bad characters in Sophocles:
Menelaus in Ajax, Creon in Oedipus Coloneus. What are we to think
of a woman who celebrates her husband's murder with a monthly
festival (277ff.)?53 We might certainly ask how she came to hate her
husband so much and whether it was merely because he stood
between her and a lover. We might remember that the case against
her is made by a bitter woman with whom she has been for years in
mounting conflict; and that Agamemnon did sacrifice Iphigenia.
(Something has been said above about the artificial rhetoric with
which this theme is handled in the wrangle between mother and
daughter.) But what are we to think of a woman who prays for the
death of her son (655ff.)? When she hears the 'news' of his death,
maternal feelings return: she is sincere in what she says (766ff.), and it
is a master-stroke of Sophocles, not merely as 'a touch of psychology',
but because the brevity of their return brings out the tragic character
of the situation, when they are stifled by an over-mastering relief
from fear.54 This is a woman who, seen in the perspective of the total
But Jones is right to refer to Agam. i icjiff. If the children of Thyestes owe their
status as Erinyes to a kindred murder, the adultery does have its penal conse-
quences in which they are concerned. Aeschylus, thus, goes some way towards
the doctrine which Sophocles makes explicit. For Sophocles' interest in the tragic
aspects of sex, see chs. 4 and 5 and (for Erinyes in Track) ch. 9 pp. 2i2fF. It may be
worth noting that in Electra he has made Cly temnestra's dream specifically sexual,
her husband returning from the dead to claim his conjugal rights. (Not that I
would be bold enough to deny all sexual reference to the Aeschylean snake: any
snake today comes under suspicion, particularly in dreams!)
M
Cf. 444-6.
54
On Clytemnestra's feeling for Orestes Perrotta (3 50) has one of his not infrequent
perceptive comments: 'un rancore che e, in certo modo, sentimento materno
ricacciato dentro a forza nell' animo, snaturato e convertito in odio, ma in un odio
doloroso'. Is this one of those psychological subtleties which we are so often
exhorted to deny to Sophocles? G. Thomson, Aeschylus and Athens (London 1941)
356: 'her depravity too has a history'. Electra, in her urn-speech, naturally puts the
Electra 233
history of the house, had been brought to hate her husband and to fear
her son.
The punishment of Clytemnestra did not await the sword of
Orestes. For all her bravado she lived in fear. 'Fearing no Erinys': it is
not true. 55 She is telling the truth when she says (78off.): 'Neither by
night nor day could sweet sleep cover my eyes, but time in its forward
movement kept me living ever in the thought of death' (dAA* o
TTpoaTCLTtov \ xpov°s Sii^yc /x' alkv ws Oavovfjievrjv). She was already
being punished, in the course of time, by the absent Orestes and by the
all-too-present Electra - punished by fear (and fear, in Aeschylus, is
an emotion which the Erinyes inspire in their victims). 56 About
Electra Clytemnestra goes on to make a most revealing remark, when
she says (783ff.): 'On this day I am rid of fear from her and from him.
For she was the greater plague that shared the house with me, ever
drinking my blood - my soul's blood - unmixed' (TOVJJLOV iKrrivovo*
act I */>vxrjs aKparov atfia).57 The mythological Erinyes drank the
physical life-blood of their victims: Electra had been acting the Erinys
to Clytemnestra, upon the mental plane, over all the long stretch of
time between the murder of Agamemnon and the action of the play;
and during that same stretch of time had been suffering a degradation
of which she was herself aware.
worst construction (1153f.): /natWrcu 8* wf>* -qSovrjs firjrrfp afiyrwp, but immedia-
tely adds: ^9 ifiol av iroWaicis | <f>rffias Xddpa npovnefines cos (fravovfievos I Tipwpos
avros. We may recall 293ff.: nX-ffv orav /cAt/17 Ttvos* | rj£ovr' *OpkaTr\v r-qvtKavra o*
ififxavris I pod irapaarda\ ov av fioi TCJVO' atria;
55
The sequence of references to divine powers at 2751T. deserves close consideration.
276: Clytemnestra fears no Erinys. 28of.: she sacrifices deoiaiv .. . rots acjrrjpiois,
i.e. to Olympian gods, especially perhaps to Zeus and Apollo. (In Aeschylus she
made sacrifices to the Erinyes, Eum. io6ff.; spoke blasphemously of a Zeus Soter
of the dead, Agam. I386f.) 289ff: she addresses Electra as Svadeov fxicn^a. The
epithet is Aeschylean (cf. esp. Cho. 46, 191, 525, of Clytemnestra). 'SvoSeov,
because Clytaemnestra thinks Agamemnon's death was a good thing, of which
the awTTfpioi Beol (having helped to bring it about) approve' (Kells). But Electra's
lamentations were addressed to the nether gods, and Clytemnestra therefore
prays, impudently, that they may never give her relief from those lamentations.
Those gods will, however, answer her prayers with the return o f Orestes. Thus
the transition to 2931T.: the mad fury of Clytemnestra when she hears of Orestes.
Cf. n. 53.
56
Cf. de Romilly, CA passim. At 447, it is worth considering whether we should
not read <f>6ftov for <f>6vov (cf. 427,63 $£.). For confusion of the two words in MSS,
see H. D. Broadhead, Tragica (Christchurch, N.Z. 1968) 69 n. 1.
57
Sophocles may well have had Cho. SJjf. in mind:
<f>6vov 8* 'Eptvvs ov\ \rn*<rnavuj\kbrr\
aKparov atfta nicrai rpirifv irooiv.
234 Electra
Time. 58 There is the stretch of time which has created the situation;
there is the point of time which is the moment of crisis and dramatic
action. We have seen how these two aspects of time are brought
together in Ajax. It is perhaps characteristic of the art of Sophocles to
integrate them with the same skill with which he integrates character
and action — if indeed a distinction can be made, since character is
created by time and action occurs at a point of time. The point of
time, the moment of crisis, belongs particularly to Orestes. Hence the
emphasis on kairos in the Prologos. They have come to a point, says
the Paedagogus, at which the time (kairos) for hesitation is past, the
time for deeds is ripe (akme).59 'We shall go forward', says Orestes,
'for it is now time (kairos), which is the chief ruler of every action
among men' (75f.). Orestes comes and acts and hopes that that is the
end of it. Electra belongs to a different dimension of time, but she too
is part of a drama: for her too things have come to a climax. She is at
breaking-point. 'Send me my brother', she prays to the chthonian
powers (iiyff.), 'for I have no more the strength to bear up alone
against the load of grief that weighs me down' (Jebb). And Chryso-
themis tells us that the patience of her governors is now exhausted
(374ff.). The time is ripe for the tragic action. First Clytemnestra, and
then Aegisthus, are killed.
Why has Sophocles reversed the Aeschylean (and Euripidean)
order of the deaths? Obviously, it has been said, because Aegisthus
was the tougher proposition, the greater obstacle to the liberation of
Electra and the house; and this has been taken as evidence that
Sophocles regarded the killing of Clytemnestra as less important, the
matricide as a minor issue or no issue at all. If the foregoing examina-
tion of the play has any validity, this is a view which can hardly be
accepted; nor would I have thought that the episode of Clytemnes-
tra's killing, brief though it is, and Electra's reaction to it were
anything less than horrifying. Electra's 'Strike again, if you can' is
enough! And is there no irony, when the Chorus immediately sings of
curses (or Curses) and the vengeance of the dead? Or when Orestes
comes out of the palace, his hand dripping blood, and says: 'All is well
within the house, if Apollo's oracle was well' (i424f.)? 60 Horrifying
58
On time in Sophocles see ch. 2 pp. 39IT.
59
It is uncertain what we should read at the end of 21, but the point is unaffected.
60
I would not suggest, with Bowra 253, that Orestes' own confidence in the
Tightness of his action is shaken, but a question could be raised. KOLXWS occurs in
Electra 23 5
taunts him with his failure as a prophet (fjidvTis).But we are not done
with the theme of prophecy. At I497ff. Aegisthus asks whether the
house need see the ills of the Pelopidae, present and to come; and
Orestes, claiming to be a first-rate prophet, limits those future ills to
the death of Aegisthus. He could be right, but he could be wrong.
Aegisthus has the last word: it was not from Agamemnon that
Orestes had inherited his gift of prophecy. Prophets and prophecy:
we may recall the First Stasimon, where the coming of Justice, the
coming of the Erinys, was embraced by a twofold reference to this
theme. 70 We may remember that this was followed by the story of
Pelops and a chariot-wreck - and the question whether since that day
torment and trouble have ever failed in the house. Have they failed
now?
We are left wondering, and on many of these points there will
never be agreement between critics.71 On one point, however,
Sophocles has surely left us in no doubt, which is that we cannot
understand the action and the personages without regard to the
Aeschylean conception of the Furies. If this is a grim play, it is because
or in opposition, cf. 1501 below and (with laa) O. T. 409. 'You, though living, are
bandying words with the dead on equal terms'. On equal terms (pace Da we, STS
202), because he is himself virtually a dead man. rots davovoi refers to Agamem-
non and to the son, his surrogate, who has risen from the 'dead' to avenge him. In
so far as we need to pin down the highly suggestive language, this seems the
simplest way of doing it.
70
Seep. 218 above.
71
T w o of the most stimulating recent contributions to the criticism of the play came
from the United States in the 1960s: by T. M. Woodard, 'Electra by Sophocles: the
dialectical design', Part 1, HSCP 68 (1964) 163-205; Part 11, HSCP 70 (1965)
195-233, and by C. P. Segal, 'The Electra of Sophocles', TAP A 97 (1966) 473-545.
Both articles investigate the language of the play in considerable detail. I have
referred elsewhere to Woodard's valuable examination of logos, ergon, and similar
words, though this leads him along paths which I cannot always follow. In
general he casts an eye of almost unqualified favour upon Electra and Orestes: it
only needs a combination of their respective virtues to provide the perfect team
for a completely laudable action. Segal's article, written with knowledge of
Woodard's, takes (as I see it) a much better balanced view of the play, which he
regards as essentially 'a play of inversions and reversals'. Exploring the ambigui-
ties, bringing out the sinister reverse of the bright surface, he arrives at a view
which is not very different from that which I have tried to present; and it may be
simply for this reason that his article strikes me as a notably successful application
of the critical methods he employs. Though he has a good deal to say about
retaliation, I feel, however, that perhaps he misses the clue provided by the
Aeschylean conception of the Erinyes, which itself involves the tragic duality he
finds in the Sophoclean play.
Electra 239
Furies have been and are at work with the result that only deplorable
alternatives are open. Which brings us back to Electra, with whom
any consideration of the play must end. And we must face a crucial
issue central to Sophoclean heroism, here focused on yet another
controversial choral ode.
We have seen Electra as victim and agent of the Furies. She is also a
Sophoclean hero, with all that courageous idealism and preoccupa-
tion with honour which we associate with such heroes. For some
these two notions may not lie too happily together in the mind. We
must return to Electra - and to Chrysothemis, with whom she shares
two important scenes. The deplorable alternatives are action and
inaction. Electra acts (or would act), her sister refrains from action;
Electra is heroic, her sister is unheroic. It is not only that Sophocles is,
more suo, illuminating his heroine by a character-contrast: it is largely
through the two Chrysothemis-scenes that he presents the issues of
heroism and its reverse. It may be important to observe the terms in
which they are presented. We have already seen how, in the
exchanges between Electra and Clytemnestra, the semblance of
rationality proves to be illusory and irrelevant. The exchanges
between Electra and Chrysothemis turn largely upon the significance
to be attached to sophrosune (and its equivalents), to nous and gnome.
The contexts of the two debates are different. In the first, the point at
issue is Electra's excessive lamentation, already censured by the sym-
pathetic Chorus. It is a matter of words. But words can be a form of
action, or so Electra thinks (256, 258, 350, 357f.), though her sensible
sister is contemptuous of seeming action which does no actual harm
(336). (But would Clytemnestra agree? Does not the word of hate
have its place along with the bloody stroke?) 72 Electra, who had
admitted (3O7f.) that sophrosune (as generally understood) was ruled
out by circumstances, tells Chrysothemis that neither would she, if
she were sophron, desire the privileges she gained by compliance
(365). Chrysothemis later rejoins (394) that Electra's life might have
been a good one, if only she had known how to be sensible73 But was
not the sister's life too good, her moral position undercut by the
practical advantages she enjoyed? Electra is extreme, but not outra-
geous. Chrysothemis admits the justice of her case. At the end of the
72
See p. 223 above.
73
Cf. 343, 345f. (where I follow Jebb), 384, 390, 398.
240 Electra
The ode lies between the desperate resolve of Electra and the appear-
ance of Orestes, between the wrangle with Chrysothemis over 'wis-
dom' and the sequence of events which leads up to the murders. As we
have seen, the Chorus picks up a theme from Electra, when they
praise her for the nobility of her resolve. They also pick up the theme
of wisdom, on which the dispute between the sisters had turned. They
pick it up at the beginning of their song, when they refer to the
'wisdom' of birds shown by their filial piety (we shall return to this);
and at the end they sing of Electra as winning a reputation for sophia as
well as arete.82 She is truly wise; she is living up to a code of honour;
82
How can the Chorus now be attributing sophia to Electra, when the Coryphaeus
had commended the nous sophos of Chrysothemis? Kells feels this difficulty so
strongly that he advances an ingenious new interpretation of this difficult passage.
Reading ra /LIT) KOLX* OV KadoirXloaoa, he interprets the statement as saying that
Electra, in rejecting the dishonourable prudence of her sister, has rejected the
ambition to be called 'clever' as well as 'good'. His trump card is Phil. 117-19,
where Odysseus tries to persuade Neoptolemus that this combination is precisely
what he can achieve; and it is a fact that, to judge by Euripides, the standards by
which conduct should be judged - the modern sophon-sundard and the tradi-
tionalfctf/ort-standard- were in the late fifth century a matter of strong debate (c£.
Arethusa 2 (1969) 139 n. 5). Nevertheless, I find it hard to suppose that the Chorus
is in fact denying sophia to Electra, particularly as this would by implication deny
that it was sophon to obey the 'greatest ordinances' and show eusebeia towards
Zeus. It seems more likely that, having answered Chrysothemis' claims to TO
<f>pov€iv by reference to the <f>povifxcjraTOi olcjvoi, they now go farther by
attributing sophia to Electra.
Electra 243
she is pious. The ode closes with the words 'piety towards Zeus'.
And her piety is shown by observance of the greatest of all
ordinances (a fjueyiar9 cjSAacrrc voya^a). We think of Antigone, reject-
ing the man-made decree of Creon as not emanating from Zeus,
preferring to observe 'the unwritten and unfailing ordinances of the
gods'. 83 In both cases the law imposes a duty upon the kin and
towards kin; in both cases it comes to be applied in a context of death.
Antigone's duty is to bury, and the interest of the nether gods is
involved. Electra's duty is to kill and, in this passage, Zeus is the only
god who is mentioned. But this is not the first reference to Zeus in the
ode.
'No, by the lightning-flash of Zeus, by heavenly Themis, they shall
not long be free of trouble' (dAA* ov rav A tog aorpairav /cat TCLV
ovpavlav &k\iiv Sapov OVK anovrjToi, 1063—5). It has been strangely
supposed84 that the commonplace Chrysothemis, whose good sense
the Coryphaeus had praised at ioisf, is now being threatened with
the weapons of divine vengeance, supernal and infernal! The clue will
be found, if we look back to 823ff., the first choral reaction to the
news of Orestes' 'death'. 'Where are the thunderbolts of Zeus, where
is the blazing sun, if they can look on these things and, inactive, let
them lie hidden?' 85 Here, as there, like simple people they are
thinking such wickedness is bound to be punished, the bolt of Zeus
must enforce heavenly Themis. But how often does he punish homi-
cide with the thunderbolt? Does he not rather work with and through
the nether powers? So now the thoughts of the Chorus turn to the
dead and they send a message, reminiscent of the great kommos in
Choephori,86 to the Atridae in the world below (rot? evepO'
'Arptihais, 1068). This plural has caused undue concern: 'the refer-
83
Ant. 450ff.
84
Not, however, by E or Dain-JVlazon p. 176 n. 2 or Kells p. 180. The connection of
thought at 1063 is through an unexpressed middle term, which is 'vengeance'.
Unexpressed, but implied, since they see this as part o f the duty o f children to
parents, which the instinctive 'wisdom' o f Electra has perceived. The figurative
terms, however, in which they are made to express the notion are such as to
remind us of the complex web o f child-parent relationships which the total
situation has involved. (See text below.)
85
It is the function of the sun to reveal, not to hide. For the over-seeing Zeus, cf. 175.
86
With 6v€i8r) (1069), d. Cho. 495.
244 Electra
entire phrase axf>* wv re pXaaraxnv . . . evpwai refers to parents, but the form of
expression d^' <Lv re .. . d<f>* <Lv TC is strongly against this, being proper to two sets
of persons. (According to Kamerbeek, the repetition lends urgency to the words,
but this is not quite convincing.) Kells points out that OVTJOIS and similar words are
commonly used of the benefits derived by parents from children (though I cannot
follow him when he suggests that the Chorus has in mind a breach of duty on the
part of the dead Agamemnon, who should not come into the stanza so early), in*
toas, at 1062, is generally taken to refer to an equality between humans and birds:
may it not rather refer to the reciprocal relationship of parents and children?
90
Cf. Segal, TAPA 488, 49^.
91
With her new role Electra assumes the epithet (cvnarpis) which both the Chorus
and she herself had applied to Orestes in a variant form: 162 {evTraTpl&av), and, in
the negative context, 857 (einrarpihwv).
92
Seech. 13 p. 308.
93
As a miastor (603). This, like certain other words, has a sort of reciprocal sense: it is
used normally of one who pollutes by an act of bloodshed - and seems to be so
used of Aegisthus at 275, but may also be used of one who avenges such an act (cf
Aesch. Eum. 178). Should one see an ambiguity here?
246 Electra
Oedipus at Colonus
episodes are separated by stasima.4 As I see it, the play falls into five
main movements.5
9
iO44ff. What actually happened? 'The poet has left the details of the rescue
indistinct' (Jebb on 1055); and the last thing he wished was to encumber his play
with a messenger-speech at this point or a long account by Theseus. This was a
problem often faced by the Greek dramatists and handled in different ways (cf.
Arethusa 2 (1969), 134, with n. 52). Here Sophocles uses the imagination of the
Chorus to present the struggle which Theseus (1148) declines to narrate. Did he
also wish his audience to remember an occasion in 407 B.C. in which Athenian
cavalry had defeated a Theban force, in the neighbourhood of Colonus? This has
been a matter of debate (cf. Rosenmeyer, Phoenix 100 n. 34). On the whole it
seems likely there had been such a skirmish, and not unlikely that, among other
motives, Sophocles, writing in the closing years of the Peloponnesian War,
wished to encourage his fellow-countrymen with the idea that they had divine
252 Oedipus at Colonus
support in their struggle against Thebes, so that the protective value of Oedipus as
heros (not of course exemplified in this particular episode) had a topical relevance.
10
121 iff. Sophocles was a very old man when he wrote this ode and may have felt
some of the emotions about old age he makes his Chorus express. But Ronnet
288f., is right to say that we should interpret the ode in relation to Oedipus rather
than to Sophocles. To Oedipus and to the dramatic situation. The ode should be -
and is - relevant to what immediately precedes and immediately follows. It is
about youth and age. It is preceded by the appeal of the youthful Polynices. What
is said of youth (12291!.) relates to Polynices (and his brother); what is said of age is
true of Oedipus. The epode is particularly significant. Bowra, 351, says that it is
concerned 'with praise for Oedipus' endurance'. Does it not also suggest his
hardness? Polynices will make as little impression on his father as the waves
beating on a rock.
11
See pp. 275ff.
Oedipus at Colonus 253
Oedipus, the blind beggar, the polluted man who killed his father and
lay with his mother, is summoned by the gods and (in some sense)
taken to them, in circumstances of a mysterious solemnity; it is made
clear that, after his death, he will be powerful for good and for evil, to
aid his friends and to harm his (and their) foes; he will, that is to say, be
a heros, one of that class of beings, intermediate between gods and
men, whose worship was common throughout Greece, many of
whom had in fact been great figures of myth granted after death a
special status corresponding to the exceptional powers they had
displayed in life. That a man, even a polluted man, should be thus
destined was not without parallel in Greek cult. But a dramatist must
extract significance from his theme: not least Sophocles, who had
already made of Oedipus in the Tyrannus a great symbol of human
destiny. If the heroization of Oedipus after death is a mystery, it
follows upon the mystery of his destiny in life. It is the pre-eminent
victim of the gods who is (in some sense) raised by their grace. Do
these mysteries throw light upon one another? And what can we see
in that light about the nature of gods and the fate of men?
That the heroization of Oedipus is a salient theme in the play has
been widely recognized; and no critic has laid more stress upon it than
Bowra, who writes (349): 'At the end of the Oedipus at Colonus no
unresolved discords remain, no mysteries call for an answer . . . The
justice of the gods is no longer revealed in a half-light as something
Oedipus at Colonus 255
not wholly explicable; its workings are shown and its Tightness
emphasized.' For Bowra, and for some others, the gods show their
justice by compensating Oedipus in full for his past sufferings.14 But
we must be careful here, or we may assume something that Sophocles
does not tell us: we may assume a belief which has played a dubious
part in some Christian theodicy, namely that sufferings in this world
may be compensated by eternal bliss. Neither Sophocles nor popular
belief tells us much about the mental state of a heros after death,15
except that he can be angry. What Oedipus craved was rest; what he
tells us is that his cold corpse, sleeping and hidden, will drink the hot
blood of his enemies (62if.). It is not bliss, but honour and power that
await him in the chthonian realm to which he is summoned. An
impossible calculus between sufferings and honours is beside the point
and beneath the argument. Oedipus is raised to power and not to
happiness.
'No unresolved discords remain': and yet Antigone walks straight
out of the play to meet her tragic destiny in Antigone, a tragedy which
is the direct - and unforeseen - consequence of Oedipus' curse upon
his sons. 'No mysteries call for an answer': yet is there nothing
mysterious in the juxtaposition of Oedipus' solemn assumption to
that awful curse? Not, I suppose, if we accept the absolute justice and
justification of the curse and regard it as issuing from one who already
speaks with more than human authority. Which, in a sense, Oedipus
does. If he is grim and passionate, so is a heros; and heroes, themselves
half-divine, may be ministers of divine justice. That the conception of
a heros might itself be a mystery, itself discordant, does not enter into
Bowra's calculations. If Antigone, in the goodness of her soul, pleads
for mercy, it is because 'she does not see the truth in its right
perspective'.16
Antigone has her importance, but the characterization of Oedipus
is fundamental - and disputed, perhaps because in itself it involves one
of those apparent contradictions which complicate the interpretation
of the play. That he is superhuman from the start — larger than life -
has been denied, but is, surely, true. His entry into the grove of the
Eumenides has a Tightness which is finally established in the closing
scene. His authority is felt and acknowledged by the Chorus (292ff.).
14
Bowra 3i4f, 349; Letters 299. Contr. Perrotta 564; Linforth (1951) 115^
15
Cf. Linforth (1951) 99ff., Ronnet 310.
16
Contr. Perrotta 610, for whom the heart of the poet is with Antigone.
256 Oedipus at Colonus
Yet this awful figure is drawn with some realistic human psychology.
In his portrayal there is a deliberate polarization of weakness and
strength, of fear and confidence; and it may not be without signifi-
cance that his confidence always seems to grow with his anger. 17
The Coloneus is a sequel to the Tyrannus in the sense that not only
events of the earlier play but, in some measure, the characteristics of
the earlier Oedipus are taken for granted. Years of suffering, of blind,
beggary, have intervened; time has passed and Oedipus is old. The
effects of time are a staple Sophoclean theme. What did time do to
Ajax, to Electra, to Philoctetes? What did it do to Oedipus? It gave
him long hours of brooding. At the end of the Tyrannus he was
overwhelmed by the sense of pollution and guilt. This he has not
entirely lost (how could he have?),18 but reflection has convinced him
of his essential innocence (and that he was wrong to put out his eyes).
Three times in the Coloneus he protests this innocence and argues it, to
convince his auditors and perhaps himself. (We shall return to this.) 19
What else has he learnt? Has he learnt patience? So he tells us in his first
speech. 'For my sufferings and the long time that has been with me
teach me to be patient - and thirdly my nobility' (orepyetv yap at
Trddai fx€ \u) \p6vos fjvvwv | fiaKpos 8L8OLGK€I KCLI TO ycvvaiov rpirov,
20
7f.). If indeed we are going to see a patient Oedipus, that will be an
astonishing thing. But perhaps there is here, as sometimes in pro-
logues, a deliberate misleading of the audience. If he has learnt to
endure hardship, if he has learnt to bow to the will of strangers (i2f.)
17
Ronnet 298f; Perrotta 582 ('ogni contrasto lo rende aspro e violento; poi ritorna il
cieco, Tinfelice, il rassegnato'). Linforth passim lays a great stress upon the human
aspects of Oedipus. Lesky, TD 133, does well to emphasize that the heros has the
same characteristics as the man, that he undergoes not a Verkldrung but an
Erhohung.
18
Linforth (1951) I42f. is good on 510-48: 'its purpose is to lay bare the abiding
horror in his soul'. Seep. 261 below. On 11326*". cf. Linforth (1951) 108, 152. This
reminder is carefully placed between a moment of joy and the first news of the
presence of Polynices, between the daughters and the son of the incestuous
marriage.
19
See pp. 26iff. below.
20
XP°VO$ £vva>v: the notion of a companionship between man and time is character-
istically Sophoclean (cf. Jebb on 7 and p. 33 n. 66 above), TO yewalov: it is
incumbent on an agathos to endure hardship. On ortpyeiv Jebb cites Phil. 538.
Philoctetes, whose situation has something in common with that of Oedipus (see
p. 257), does not claim arete explicitly at this point (but cf. 535, 537): it is Heracles
at the end of the play who links arete with the endurance ofponoi (1419*?".). On the
theme of teaching and learning see n. 49 below.
Oedipus at Colonus 257
like any blind beggar, we shall see — and before very long - that he has
no patience with those to whom he attributes his misfortunes.
This we begin to see when Ismene first speaks about his sons and,
before he hears her news, he breaks out into a diatribe against them for
their neglect. Their neglect of his trophe, of his maintenance. This
word (or tropheia) occurs five times in thirty-three lines. Such ac-
cumulations are, as we have often seen, a characteristic Sophoclean
technique; and the purpose is, I think, not merely to bring out the
offence of sons who have neglected their sacred duty (similar lan-
guage will recur in a later scene),21 but to reveal the preoccupation of
one who has lived for years at or below the level of subsistence. The
Coloneus was written near in time to Philoctetes, and many similarities
between the two plays have been observed. One similarity is this: that
in both plays a man of noble rank is reduced to destitution. The skill
of Sophocles in conveying Philoctetes' preoccupation with the sheer
business of existence has been freely admired. Is it an inadmissible
intrusion of 'psychology' to see a similar preoccupation in the old
Oedipus?22
This old Oedipus had been a king. Ismene gives her news about the
oracle: Oedipus the exile will be sought after (£77x77x09). 'They say',
she says, 'that their power (Kparrj) is coming to be in your hand (ev
ooty (392)- Is ^ inadmissible to say that old emotions stir in the once
masterful king of the Tyrannus?23 At any rate Sophocles now reiter-
ates kratos and kratein (392, 400, 405, 408). It is a matter of Oedipus
coming under the mastery of Thebes and not even finding a grave on
Theban soil. And so he moves from the bitter grumble of his earlier
speech (337ff.) to the quasi-curse of 42iff. 'May the gods not quench
their fated strife': and is it not always a terrible thing to pray that strife
may continue? 'And may the decision (reXos) concerning their war-
fare come to be in my hand (iv e/Ltoi).' If the power, the mastery,
cannot be his in one way, then let it be in another. 24 Words may be as
powerful as deeds.
No one, I think, has denied that the Colonean Oedipus is character-
ized by passion, by wrath, by thutnos; or that this characteristic is
connected with his future destiny as a heros.25 Kitto observes26 that
21
See p. 276 below.
22
The tone of 3-6 may involve a little more than mere exposition of circumstance.
23
See n. 79 below.
24
The climax of this theme comes at 1379-82.
25 26
Cfe.g.Pohlenzi 365, H 102; Perrotta 562, 6o6ff. Kitto, GT 393.
258 Oedipus at Colonus
audience, but what she says goes far beyond the immediate issue.
After the lines already quoted, she goes on (i i95fT.). Took to the past,
not the present - to all you have suffered through father and mother
{rrarpcoa /cat firjTpwa Trrjixara). If you look at that past, I am sure you
will understand that bad is the end which waits on a bad wrath (yvwarj
KOLKOV | dvfjuov reXevT-qv o>9 KCLKT) irpoayiyveTat). Y o u h a v e n o small
food for thought, you who have lost the sight of your eyes.'34
Oedipus had blinded himself and to this act of his he had indeed given
thought. 'After a time', he said (437ff), 'when all my anguish was
already assuaged, and when I was beginning to understand that my
wrath had run too far in punishing those past errors . . .'
TOV dvfiov eKSpafiovra JJLOL | /zei£a> KoXaaTrjv TOJV irplv rjf
It is hard to see how Sophocles could have suggested more clearly that
the self-blinding and the curse upon the sons (not yet delivered in its
final form) were actions of the same order and significance. (Aes-
chylus saw them as twin acts of madness, Sept. 778ff.) Oedipus had
come to understand how excessively his thumos had operated against
himself; Antigone hopes, in vain, that he will understand the nature of
his thumos as directed towards his sons. Creon, an evil man and an old
man,35 knows more about thumos than Antigone. 'Anger', he says,
'knows no old age till death comes' (Ovfxov yap ovSev yqpds eonv aXXo
TTXTJV I daveiv) (954f). It was true of Oedipus. And, when death came,
the gods took this man of wrath to themselves.
which would have absolved him in Attic law. But the first argument
he employs on the first occasion - and it is also the last that he
employs on the third occasion, so that the total defence of Oedipus is
framed by a repetition of the theme - is different. Speaking of the
killing of Laius, he says: 'Even if I had acted with knowledge
(<j>pova)v), I should not have proved myself base (/ca/cds): I was
requiting a wrong' (27if). The Greek expression here used is
nadajv . . . avreSpiov. Oedipus had asked: 'How was I base by nature'
(KCLKOS <f>voiv)? And the answer implied is that it was in his nature to
retaliate a wrong, which was the mark of an agathos. The reference is,
clearly, to the narrative in the Tyrannus, when father and son met at
the place where three roads joined, when Laius aimed the first blow,
Oedipus retaliated and killed him. Oedipus has just said that his
actions (epya) were a matter of suffering rather than doing (neTrovdoT*
earl JJL&WOV 77 ScSpa/cdra, 266f). He goes on to say that, while he came
where he came in ignorance, those at whose hands he suffered
(tTTaoxov) destroyed - or sought to destroy - him in knowledge. And
here he must be thinking of the parents who knowingly exposed their
son to die. That they should suffer at his hands by incest and parricide
was indeed an ironical kind of unconscious retaliation but that is not
what Oedipus meant when he said nadwv dvreSpwv and so modified
his claim to be patient rather than agent. This becomes clear when we
turn to the third passage. The argument seems already to be con-
cluded on the now familiar plea of ignorance, when Oedipus rounds
on Creon and says: 'Answer me. If, here and now, someone were to
come up and seek to kill you . . . , would you ask if the killer was your
father or retaliate forthwith? I think, if you love your life, you would
retaliate' (99iff.).41
Reasonable enough - in law, in recognised Greek morality, and in
common sense. And we should be making altogether too much of
this ground of Oedipus' defence, if it were not that the theme of
41
The argument at ijoff. actually goes farther, implying that it would have been
permissible for a son to retaliate upon one whom he knew to be his father.
Oedipus will in due course retaliate upon his sons; and Antigone, seeking to
restrain him, in effect reverses the argument of 27off, when she maintains
(1189-91) that it is not permissible for a father to retaliate against a son even if he
has suffered terribly at his hands. Dover, GPM 274 (with a wrong reference)
comments that this is 'a note unusual for the fifth century'. The more remarkable,
therefore.
Oedipus at Colonus 263
42
Or is he thinking of 7X5-7? It is a minor point.
43
1201-3 are carefully phrased to bring out the converse and complementary
principle of returning good for good. (For rivnv in the context of evil, c{. 994,
996.) Oedipus in fact acts upon both principles (c{. 1489^.
264 Oedipus at Colonus
sons.44 Having done so, he then goes on, at the summons of a divine
power, to assume the status of a heros.
47
On the notion of x&pi-s s e e Gellic 182.
48
The word dyvw^icov has slightly different senses in relation to Phoebus and to
Oedipus: if they refuse to harbour Oedipus, they will be hard-hearted towards
him, but they will be at cross-purposes with Apollo who has given the oracle.
There might be a reminiscence of the hostility between Furies and Apollo in the
Oresteia. H o w important a role does Apollo play in the Coloneus? He enters into it
of course as the source of the oracles on which Oedipus relies: 86ff., 102, 412-14,
456, 623, 665, 793. He does not, however, brood over the play as over the
Tyrannus. There could be several reasons for this. The role of Athens directs
attention rather to the second half of Eumenides. Towards the end of the play Zeus
emerges into prominence (see p. 271), and his relationship to the nether powers is
(as ultimately in the Oresteia) more important than that of Apollo. Possibly also it
is because (cf. Knox, HT 193 n. 11) Oedipus seems to acquire a growth of
prophetic power in his own right.
266 Oedipus at Colonus
tion of having delivered such a curse, though he sees the strife o f his sons as
predestined (42if., r-qv nenptofievrfv cpiv). At 789f. he has come to see that his sons
will die, using language which recalls a version of the Aeschylean curse, but
without indication that he has previously so cursed them. The language of 1370 ff.
is still a little vague. What is the daimon? The Erinys-curse, the alastor, of a father?
Or just destiny (c{. the fatalism of Polynices at 1443)? It is as chough his mind is
moving towards the great climactic curse of 1383ff., which I cannot believe to be a
mere endorsement of a years old imprecation. Nor do I believe that Polynices,
when he approached his father, knew that he was under precisely such a curse or
that, when he saw the wrong inflicted on him by his brother as due to his father's
Erinys (TTJV o-qv 'Epivvv, 1299), he was thinking of more than what is elsewhere
(369) called r) ndXai ytvovs <f>dopd, of which Oedipus was the prime exemplifica-
tion. One could, I suppose, take up a compromise position and say that Oedipus
had, as in the general tradition, cursed his sons before going into exile but
Sophocles has reserved the specific curse of mutual slaughter to be the climax of
his play. But this seems too nice.
51
Notably Linforth (1951) 92-7, whose single-minded efforts (in a work which has
so many merits) to deny significance to the Eumenides - and indeed to the whole
theological theme - sometimes approach the ludicrous. Cf. Adams 165. Contr.
Knox's good note at p. 194 n. 12. Rosenmeyer, Phoenix 106 says of Oedipus: 'His
merger with the Furies may well be the most profound and at the same time the
most obscure symbol of the play.' A rather extreme statement of a very important
aspect of the drama.
52
The name Semnai is suggested by the use of the epithet at 41, followed by 89f.,
100. Cf. Aesch. Eum. 1041.
53
For a different interpretation see A. D. Fitton Brown, LCM 1 (1976) 103-5. As it
is generally taken, the comparison, which is in point of austerity and fairly
superficial, seems to have no purpose except to insist on a kinship between
Oedipus and the goddesses.
268 Oedipus at Colonus
With this mystery Aeschylus dealt in the Oresteia, for it was he who
dramatized the transformation of the Erinyes into Eumenides. In the
Oresteia (and in other plays) he explored, dramatically, the relation-
ship between Furies and Fate (or the Fates), and between both of them
and the ultimate power of Zeus. (I refer the reader to earlier discus-
sions.)55 Sophocles, for reasons of his own, though he had used the
Aeschylean concept of Erinyes in previous plays, excluded Furies
from the Tyrannus. He wished there to concentrate upon the evil
destiny of Oedipus in relative isolation and with minimal reference to
past and future generations. The destiny of Oedipus is still a theme in
the Coloneus,56 but now the Furies return, bringing with them the
54
Like Electra? See p. 228 above.
55
See n. 57.
56
Cf. esp. H4ff. 'Who is the old man?' 'Not wholly of the best fortune, that ye
should envy him' (ov -ndvv fioipas euScu/novtacu TTpwTrjs), asjebb translates the
untranslatable with his usual ingenuity. The language speaks oimoira and hints at
daimon\ and the evidence is the blindness. 'Were you blind from birth?' The text o f
I5off. is uncertain, but it is fairly clear that that is what the Chorus ask, followed
by a double reference to his aion. W h y are they made to ask this question which is
not answered? Oedipus' blindness was self-inflicted, yet he cites it as evidence of
his moirajdaimon. It is hard to believe that Sophocles did not recall a certain passage
in the O. T. (i299fF., on which see pp. I74f. above).
The language of 229f. is interesting. The Chorus argue that they were trapped
into making a promise on false pretences. It is a natural and defensible point, but it
is expressed at considerable length and in difficult language. Can an expression
such as fjLoipiSia riois be used, in the context of this play, merely to convey the
retribution which might fall on them if they break their promise? T w o points
seem to arise: (i) unwittingly, they are anticipating the line of defence of Oedipus
Oedipus at Colonus 269
whole question of the nether world, its role injustice, and its disquiet-
ing relation to the government of Zeus.
I have argued elsewhere 57 that for Aeschylus - and also for
Sophocles - a fundamental religious problem which presented itself,
in and through tragedy, was precisely this: what was the relationship
between Zeus on the one hand (and along with Zeus the other bright
gods of the heavenly Olympus) and, on the other hand, the dark,
primitive, infernal powers that dwell in the earth. It was natural - and
all too easy — for the Greeks to distinguish between chthonioi and
ouranioi. They were distinguished by many details of cult, but equally
by the emotional attitude of the worshippers. The cult of the Olym-
pians was cheerful — the sacrifice was a festival, in the benefits of
which the worshippers had their share; the worship of the chthonioi
was attended by fear which cannot be better illustrated than by the
attitude of the villagers of Colonus towards the Eumenides. Clearly
the Greeks worshipped the Olympians in the hope of good, the
chthonians in the fear of evil. Isocrates58 - and who could be better
evidence for conventional Greek attitudes? — divides the gods into
two classes: * those who are the cause of good things to us and are
called Olympians: those who are set in charge of disasters and punish-
ments and bear less agreeable names'. Every Greek knew, of course,
that the distinction was not absolute - that they had cause to fear the
Olympians as a source of evil and, for that matter, that the earth and
its powers promoted the fertility of the land. But, broadly, a distinc-
tion held good, which was also the distinction between light and
darkness, between day and night, between hope and fear, between
good and evil.
Upon the tragedians this contrast forced itself with a unique
insistence. The terror which attended the worship of the chthonioi
derived above all from association with the dead. The earth, if it was
on the charge of parricide (c£. 27off., which is thus prepared?); (ii) nothing could
be less true than what they say, witness the history of Oedipus and his race -
retaliate for your sufferings, and the inevitable result is a continuance of the
process. Cf. Gellie 161: 'they are borrowing from the play's major theme'. It is a
standing question whether, in the case of words which form part of the common
vocabulary of misery, their etymology is ever felt. Thus dusmoros (but equally
athlios) is of frequent occurrence in the play: 224, cf. 327, 331, 347, 365, 557, 559,
749, 804, 1109. In any or all of these cases is a notion oftnoira present?
57
SecJHS 74 (1954) 16-24.
58
v. 117. Cf. p. 208.
270 Oedipus at Colonus
the source of fertility, was also the dwelling of the dead; the powers of
the earth were representative of the interests and influence of the dead.
N o w the Greek tragic myths tended to deal with violent deaths and
the consequences of such deaths. For those who died by violence did
not rest in the earth: they demanded vengeance, and their Erinyes
secured it. And this was a form of justice. But Aeschylus had inherited
a conception of Zeus as the supreme ruler of the universe and the
upholder of just order. Therefore he must stand in some relationship
to the powers of the dead, though his bright home in the sky was the
very antithesis of the nether gloom. Indeed, according to one early
formulation, the latter was not part of Zeus's realm at all, but
belonged to his brother Pluto or Hades, who might also be called the
nether Zeus (Zevs xO°vl°s)- F° r Aeschylus, however, there could not
be two Zeus's, but only one Zeus. In his world there could not be a
divided responsibility for good and evil: Olympians against
chthonians, one Zeus against another Zeus - or for that matter Zeus
against Moira or the Moirai. The world, human and divine, if it was
to be understood at all, must be understood as a whole, the dark with
light, the evil with the good. To do so was a function of tragic poetry.
What right have we to say that Sophocles saw the same problem in
a similar way? Some evidence to this effect has already emerged from
our examination of earlier plays. 59 It might seem, however, that the
Coloneus is heavily concentrated upon the nether world: it opens with
the arrival of Oedipus at the grove of the Eumenides and ends with his
passing to become himself a chthonian power. To this destiny he is
summoned by the thunder of Zeus. €KTVTT€V aWrfp, <L Zev, exclaims
the Chorus (1456); and thunder is an attribute of the Olympian Zeus.
This winged thunder of Zeus', says Oedipus, 'will shortly bring me
to Hades.' But as the Messenger heard it, it was from Zeus Chthonios
that came a thunderous noise (KTVTrrjoe JJL€V Zevs x0di>ios\ 1606). If, as it
would seem, Sophocles is establishing a mysterious relationship
between Zeus and the other nether powers, then that relationship is
symbolized by the joint act of worship which Theseus was seen to
perform when the Messenger looked back and saw that Oedipus had
disappeared from view and Theseus, who had been screening his eyes
with his hand, made adoration simultaneously to earth and to the
Olympus of the gods: opcofiev avrov yrjv re irpooKwovvd* dfxa | /cat rov
59
Cf., e.g., p. 211 n. 2 1 .
Oedipus at Colonus 271
60
Cf. Aristophanes, Knights 156, where the Sausage-seller is bidden to adore earth
and the gods.
61
The scholiast's aXdfinerov is on the whole preferable to the akuirqTov of the codd.
(1662), which could have been suggested by the following line (where, however,
the yap is adequately justified by cvvovv). A word of darkness is admirable here,
and the contrast of evvow . . . aXdfi7T€rov could be compared with the enigmatic
yXvK€iai naiSes apxaiov EKOTOV at 106.
62
CfJH574(i954)2in.3i.
63
1435: €vo8oir) codd., Jebb, Dain; ev 61S0117 Burges, Pearson. The point is unaf-
fected.
64
Easterling, PCPS 6t. finds 'a deliberate ambiguity of association here: the self-
seeking of the sons is recalled in Opovcov and yet with it the suppliant state of
Polynices (avvSaKosY •
272 Oedipus at Colonus
primeval laws'. The issue could not be more clearly put or in a more
fundamental context; and to it we shall return.
the poet has no intention to deprive him of sympathy or deny him all
sincerity. It could be that, like the young Neoptolemus confronted
with Philoctetes, he had never fully realized his father's plight until he
saw him: still, one critic may be right to find a 'tastelessness and
artificiality' in his remarks at 1256—63. 77 One might say that in him
are combined a weak pity for Oedipus and a strong ambition for
himself (which comes out clearly at I342f.). But the psychology of
Polynices is far less important than the themes that are developed in
this scene. It has been observed, rightly, that the theme of nurture
(with words such as trophe), so prominent in the second movement of
the play, returns in this scene to bring out the heinousness of the sons'
neglect of their father. 78 This duty Polynices has sacrificed to his
ambition, to the sceptre and the throne (1354); and that too is an echo
of the same earlier scene (418, 448f.). What might also be observed is
that, in that scene and prior to the story of the brothers' quarrel, the
accumulation of nurture-words had, on news of the oracle, been
followed by a similar accumulation of words of 4mastery'. If the
nurture-words stress the offence of the sons, they reveal the long-fos-
tered resentment of Oedipus; if the words of mastery prepare the
theme of kingship, they show perhaps that he remembers he was once
a king. The stress on royal power which follows may be more than an
objective statement of fact. 79
In judging this later scene we should not forget that Sophocles was
an ironist. It is preceded not only by the touching reunion of father
and daughters but also by the great speech of Antigone. In that
remarkable speech the most remarkable thing she says is that
Oedipus, who begat Polynices (gave him his phusis), had therefore no
77
Easterling, PCPS 6.
78
Easterling, PCPS }£., 9.
79
On the 'mastery'-group, which belongs to 392-408, see p. 257 above. It should
perhaps be considered in relation to the language used in the same context about
the ambitions of the sons. (This language is studied by Easterling, PCPS 41".) First,
a simple reference to 'thrones' (368, 375); then - from Oedipus - 'tyranny' (419),
'sceptres and thrones' (425), followed at 448f. by the elaborate pleonasm of
'thrones' and 'steptres' and 'tyranny'. I cannot help wondering whether this does
not cut both ways: not only stressing the ambition of the sons and their offence in
preferring power to filial duty but also indicating a revival of power-feelings in
Oedipus. I notice also - though this is a more hazardous region of specula-
tion - that, in this context of power, at 427 and 448 Oedipus is 6 <f>voas, i.e. the
notion of phusis is introduced. (At 1293 a striking expression of Oedipus' royal
power is immediately followed by two p/iMi/5-words.) On the text of 367 see
BICS 26 (1979) n .
Oedipus at Colonus 2jj
right to retaliate upon him even for the most impious of offences. Are
we not thus invited, when father and son meet, to see a likeness in
phusis between them? 80
There is certainly a likeness in situation, on which Polynices seeks
to play (i335ff.). 81 But it goes farther than that. What is the sup-
pliant's prayer (i326ff.)? That Oedipus will relax his heavy wrath
(JJLTJVIV fiapeiav) in favour of one who has set out to take vengeance on
a brother (npos Kaoiyvt\rov TLGLV), one who has been thrust out of his
land, deprived of his power and dishonoured. But that heavy wrath
itself sprang from the same fount of emotion, for a similar offence:
Oedipus too had been dishonoured, thrust out, reduced from royal
status to beggary. Polynices' plea by analogy misfires, because he does
not know that that other suppliant had found a protector, that other
exile a new home and citizenship. He has transferred his allegiance
from the city that had wronged him. If Polynices is going to attack his
native land, Oedipus looks forward to the day when his cold corpse in
the grave will drink the hot blood of Thebans. 82
No doubt to put it in this way is to over-simplify. Equally, it is an
over-simplification to miss the irony of those resemblances, to which
Oedipus in his passion is blind; to miss the whole passionate unreflect-
ing character of his imprecation, which is the brimming-over of
long-pent resentments. Yet Oedipus goes on to bless his daughters
and become a heros.
Why should it ever have been supposed that there is an inconsis-
tency in this? The depth of love which he feels for his daughters, the
depth of hatred he feels for his sons, are two sides of the same coin. He
loved his daughters because they were his benefactors, hated his sons
because they had wronged him. To do good to your friends and harm
to your enemies was the old arete, the newer justice; this is the code we
have so often met and which Oedipus follows - and being a man
beyond the common measure carries both his love and his hate
80
1369: vfieis 8* an* aXXov KOVK ipov TT*$VKQ.TOV. Antigone knew better than that
(1189).
81
Burian, in his interesting study of O.C. as a suppliant drama, brings out (p. 422)
the parallelism between the suppliances of Oedipus and Polynices, remarking that
'Antigone pleads on behalf of a suppliant, but this time to a reluctant Oedipus, not
for him'.
82
Contr. Letters 303: 'Of course it would be irrelevant to charge Oedipus with lack
of patriotism here.' Perhaps; perhaps not.
278 Oedipus at Colonus
What truth about the gods and about the world in which he had lived
for some ninety years did it embody? That it embodied an important
truth - and a grim truth - we can hardly doubt. So much of his
tragedy is concerned with divine wrath. With divine wrath, but also
with human pity. We must return to this.
CHAPTER TWELVE
Philoctetes
The bow-question thus has three phases, which are essential to the
economy of the play. The question has been debated for decades, one
might have said ad nauseam, but the criticism of the play has recently
been refreshed by a series of valuable contributions from which one
thing at least emerges, which is the skill of Sophocles in inviting the
attention and maintaining the suspense of his audience.1 Information
is withheld and released as it will be dramatically effective. There are
dramatic reversals. There are false starts and, above all, false endings,
so that the audience is kept in a state of uncertainty, 2 never quite sure
what the characters will do or even in some cases what they are trying
to do. The trick fails; force is hardly tried; persuasion fails. In the end -
or what seems to be the end — bow, Philoctetes and Neoptolemus are
leaving, but not for Troy. With the appearance of Heracles, there is a
final reversal.
It does not of course follow that, because Sophocles has developed
and maintained an interest of this kind with great dramaturgical skill,
he is not simultaneously exploring serious issues. Other recent writers
have taken the play very seriously as an expression of the poet's tragic
vision, particularly in relation to the divine plan, to the refusal of
Philoctetes to conform, and to the role of Heracles. 3 These are matters
to which we must return, when we have considered the course of the
action, and when we have considered the characters. For character
and action are no less closely meshed in this than in other Sophoclean
plays: indeed it might be fair to say that in no other play is interest in
character so absorbing, not only in what the personages are and how
they have become so, but also in what they should do and what they
will do, which, largely because of the uncertainties already men-
tioned, is a far more open question than in most Greek tragedies. We
become absorbed in the characters and problems of three men, in
their relationships and in their communication with one another. 4
11
For Vidal-Naquet's suggestion that Neoptolemus is to be seen as an ephebe who
graduates into a hoplite in the course of the play, and who, being qua ephebe
associated with wild nature, serves as a link between Philoctetes and Odysseus, see
BICS 26 (1979) lof. In the same article I consider a very different view of
Neoptolemus taken by W. M. Calder, GRBS 12 (1971) 153-74, for whom he is
from first to last a consummate villain. I find this quite unconvincing, but his
argument raises an interesting point about the winds, which I discuss.
284 Philoctetes
mind of his character.12 The word occurs four times in this connec-
tion. But what does it signify? It can be used of comparatively recent
events. When Neoptolemus uses it (806) during the agonies of Philo-
ctetes, which commenced at 730, it might refer to those agonies alone,
the effect of which upon him is crucial. Yet, at 759f, when Philoctetes
has appealed for pity (756) - and it is Neoptolemus' first expression of
pity in the play, he calls him 'hapless in all manner of woe' (Sta TTOVOJV
TrdvTcov). When did he begin to pity? When did he begin to feel
ashamed? We cannot say. The word recurs three times in the confes-
sion-scene: first at 906, and this immediately follows words (9O2f.)
which recall the Prologos; then at 913, which also refers to the trick;
and, finally, after Philoctetes' scathing attack, the climax comes in
two splendid lines. 'In me a terrible pity has come to lodge and has
long been there' (ipol /xei> OLKTOS Sewos ifjLTreiTTajKe TLS | TOV8* av8pos
ov vvv 7Tp(x)rov dXXd Kal 7raAcu, 965f.).13 The process which produced
this state may well have begun with the first sight of Philoctetes.
The entry - the sight - of Philoctetes is prepared by the Parodos of
a Chorus of sailors; and Sophocles uses it, among other things, to
show his young hero in a new relation which brings out at once his
youth and his responsibility. The relationship is very natural and
rather touching. They ask for his instructions, deferring to the greater
skill and judgement of one who holds the sceptre from Zeus. Imme-
diately they call him 'child', but say their duty is to serve (hupourgein)
him. Very flattering to the young man who has just been freed from
the overwhelming presence of Odysseus, but an Odysseus who had
promised him a reputation for cleverness! The kommos is, naturally,
about Philoctetes. Where is he? 'It's quite clear to me (efioiye, 162)',
says Neoptolemus, that he is out after food;14 and he describes his life
objectively. The Chorus is moved to pity (169, 186, cf. 161) at such a
life for one who had been a great man. 'Nothing surprising in all this
to me (e/xot)', says the young man; 'if/ (/cdyai) have any judgement',
Philoctetes is suffering at the hands of the gods for their good reasons.
Neoptolemus is right of course! But it is rather glib, the cocksureness
12
Cf. Kirk wood, SSDi 59.
13
Steidle 181, points out that the expressions with palai are 'alle verschieden
nuanciert*. The translation of 96sf. attempts to bring out the force of the perfect
tense.
14
Neoptolemus is in fact repeating - and appropriating - what Odysseus said at 43!
For the use of stressed personal pronouns, see Select Index.
Philoctetes 285
15
Kitto, FMD 112, maintains that Neoptolemus is here on the defensive, but this
seems less probable.
16
A sudden dramatic appearance with the bow at the mouth of the cave. Robinson,
39fF. argues ingeniously that Philoctetes is seen, by the audience and by the
Chorus, trailing across from a Parodos (and that this influences their language in
the final antistrophe). But it is precisely the language of 20iff on which the
argument falls down: an accumulation of words of sound, not a word of sight.
How often does a chorus see a character approaching and not say so? On
Sophocles' purpose in giving the the cave a double entrance Dale was right, cf.
WS 69 (1956) iO4ff.
17
See App. F below.
18
Neoptolemus is promised eukleia by Philoctetes and by Odysseus (119) on
different grounds. Both lay stress on the brevity of the countervailing disadvan-
tage: rfiiepas TOI fioxOos ov\ oXrjs /-ad? (480), r^iepas fiepos ftpaxv (83). Both call
on him to endure - Odysseus a brief dishonour, Philoctetes a brief inconvenience.
If this is an intentional parallel (as I think it is), 477 might be invoked to support
Housman's els oveiSos at 83, which has other merits. When, at 5191T., Neopto-
lemus and the Chorus do their play-acting, the leader asking if they can really put
up with Philoctetes' noisome disease and the Coryphaeus replying that that is a
reproach which he will never be able to bring against them, the stress on TOUTO,
which is not strictly required, may suggest the possibility of other reproaches
(TOIWISO? . . . ovciSiacu).
19
Some interpreters find a positive zest in Neoptolemus' playing of his deceptive
role, others find signs of reluctance, notably Steidle, who, in the course of a close
analysis, points to the possibly ambiguous tenour of e.g. 43 if. and 436f. Judge-
ments here are so subjective that agreement may never be reached, but see my text
below on the language of 671.
286 Philoctetes
24
Cf. Segal, Hermes 146.
25
Recent writers have pointed out, correctly, that Greeks of the classical period did
not necessarily put a simple faith in the terms of oracles and prophecies. C f
Robinson 47.
26
C f BICS 16 (1969) 48-50, where I hope to have shown that ortyavos refers, not
to a victory of Philoctetes at Troy, but, by an agonistic metaplior, to him as the
prize for which Neoptolemus is now striving; and I suggest that hexameters are
used as a heroic, not as an oracular, metre.
27
O n 'hunting' in the play, literal and metaphorical, see Rose 83f The word drfpdv is
first used by Neoptolemus (116) - of the bow, but he had already spoken of
'taking' Philoctetes by force or by cunning (9of).
288 Philoctetes
them, his disease which ever flourishes and grows in strength. At the
end of the speech he tells of his ten years of hunger and misery. 'That,
my son, is what the Atridae and the violent Odysseus have done. May
the Olympian gods give them some day themselves to suffer in
requital for me!' (311-16). 37
Sophocles knew - how we cannot say — that a man in solitude must
make his own companions; and we come to realize that Philoctetes
has peopled the island with personifications. There is his disease - the
beastly sickness (265), 'in whose company' (£vv fj, 268) he had been
abandoned, and which, like a greedy animal, he has to feed (313).38 It
is a personal enemy; and no less is true of the viper who made him
lame (63 if). His foot takes on an existence independent of himself
(786). 'You bays and headlands, you beasts on the mountains who
dwell with me, you precipitous rocks, to you - for I have no one else
to whom to speak - to you my wonted companions {irapovoi TOIS
elojOoaiv) - I bewail my treatment by the son of Achilles' (936ff).
Philoctetes apostrophizes the natural scene - and his cave (952f); he
apostrophizes the birds who have been his prey and whose prey he
will become (ii46ff). He apostrophizes his bow, a friend now
wrenched from his loving hands, and calls upon it to look with pity
upon its change of masters (ii28ff.).
But closer to him than any of these companions is the hatred he has
so long cherished for the Greeks, for the Atridae and for Odysseus;
and it becomes a question whether this is a companionship which it is
psychologically possible for him to relinquish. When the agony
comes upon him (782ff), after the address to his foot, as the pain
redoubles, he cries out: 'My friend from Cephallenia, would that this
anguish might pierce your breast.' More cries of agony. 'You two
generals, if only you instead of me might cherish this malady for so
long.' We realize, with horror, that we are witnessing an oft-repeated
scene, that again and again for ten years not only has he prayed for
death (a> ddvare Odvare, 797), but has derived a kind of horrible
consolation from imagining that such sufferings might befall his
enemies. His passionate hatred, his longing for revenge, have come to
37
A little later we have the well-known passage (41 off.) about the living and the
dead upon which much has been built by some interpreters. Too much? It is given
detailed consideration in App. F, where I conclude that its main function is to feed
and elicit Philoctetes' hatred and contempt for his enemies.
38
For the wound as a beast, seej. C. Kamerbeek, Mnem. ser. 4.1 (1948) 198-204.
292 Philoctetes
39
It may be worth looking at iO35ff. a little more carefully. May they perish, he
says; and, having wronged him, they will perish, if the gods care for justice
(rjSiKTfKOTes, 8IKT)S). He finds evidence that they do so care in the fact that the
Greeks have come to him. By Kcvrpov Bciov he means, not the prophecy, but their
ill-success. But the punishment is incomplete - and long-delayed. He calls on the
witnessing gods to take vengeance at last upon them all. (By ^v^inavras avrovs he
presumably means the whole Greek army, and we can compare the sweeping
curse of Ajax at Ajax 843f.) He then introduces the notion of divine pity. Belated
justice is often associated with the Erinyes, but Sophocles preferred not to
introduce those goddesses in this play, nor does he, as in O.C., explore the
relationship between divine justice and divine pity. The important thing here is
Philoctetes' own passionate longing for retaliation, which takes priority over his
desire for cure.
40
Linforth (1956) 115; Garvie 218 n. 16; Gellie 144.
Philoctetes 293
deprived of the bow, two after its return to him. 41 While Neopto-
lemus, acknowledging his lie, still withholds the bow, little can be
effected. Philoctetes, he says, must sail to Troy 'to the Achaeans and
the army of the Atridae' (915f). There is brief reference (9i9f.) to
saving him from his troubles and to his share in the sack of Troy, but
Philoctetes is only interested in what Neoptolemus has done and will
do (921, 924). When Odysseus takes control of the situation, his
persuasions, if they can be so described - he speaks offeree (983) and
uses it (1003) - were bound to fail and he may not have believed in
their efficacy. 42 Having failed, he changes his tack and creates a new
situation. 'Let him stay' (1055).
There has been much argument about the intentions of Odysseus at
this point; and it could be that Sophocles did not intend his audience
to be certain of them. That he would have preferred Philoctetes to go
to Troy is evident from the forcible prevention of suicide; that he was
prepared, if necessary, to go without him is probable enough; that, at
the least, he was happy for the sailors to remain is also probable. Let
Philoctetes realize what it means to be left alone without the bow, let
him reflect that, if he does not come, the famous bow will be used by
Teucer or, worse still, by Odysseus himself, and, so thinks Odysseus
(who is a rational man and knows nothing of the force of blind
emotion), he will see sense and change his mind. 43
The kommos (1081—217) is a big set-piece which bulks large in the
play. Like many lyric scenes in Euripides, it has great pathos: does it
advance or affect the action? It is primarily directed to revealing the
mind of Philoctetes. Will he go to Troy? Yes, the legend said so; and
that was something Sophocles could hardly change. Will he go of his
own accord? Odysseus perhaps thinks that he will, now that he has
lost the bow, and when he has had time to reflect. The kommos shows
that he will not - not on those terms, not in response to blackmail.
The Chorus - sympathetic realists - reason with him, and a reason-
41
Kitto,FMDi2iff.
42
At 994 neiareov suggests obedience rather than persuasion. When he is treating
Philoctetes like a slave (995), it is no good telling him that he is a noble hero
destined to sack Troy.
43
Sophocles does not invite us to ask whether, if this failed, Odysseus would have
been content with the bow or whether, as he could well have done, he would have
returned and taken Philoctetes by force. The essential point is that, as Sophocles
has chosen to tell the story, the audience must believe Philoctetes will go to Troy
and cannot see how this is to be brought about.
294 Philoctetes
able man would go to Troy. 44 But can he be reasonable after all that
he has suffered at the hands of the Greek leaders? He is back where he
was before, living in a world of his own, peopled with birds (which he
can no longer shoot), a bow (which is no longer his), his cave, his
painful foot - all vividly personified.45 It is the same, except that it is
worse for the frustration of his hopes, the treachery of Neoptolemus,
and the loss of the bow. Without the bow he is unable to live
(1081-115). Does this lead to a change of mind? No, but to his old
psychological refuge, a curse on Odysseus (1113-15). The bow is in
hostile hands (1123—39). Does this lead to a change of mind? No, but
to more vilification of Odysseus. His mind dwells with the birds
(1146-62), but the Chorus wants him to come back to men. Tor the
god's sake, if you have any respect for a stranger who comes close to
you in all good-will, come close to him' (1 i63f.). Again the reaction is
unfavourable, but, when they begin to move away, his feeling for
society revives. He apologizes to them, using a very social word: 'you
must not be angry (vc/mccnjToV, 1193)', he says, 'if a man who is
distraught with pain speaks frantically'; but, when they renew their
advice and say 'come', his response is more violent than ever,
approaching blasphemy, and once more he curses those who have
rejected the cripple. Philoctetes retires into his cave.
Of the two tests to which the heroic obstinacy of Philoctetes is
exposed he has passed the first: he has faced the prospect of a lingering
death and preferred it to compliance. The second test - once more in
possession of the bow, to withstand the persuasions of a generous
Neoptolemus - will be subtler and more difficult. For with the return
of Neoptolemus and Odysseus the situation changes dramatically. At
the end of their brief altercation, the former calls Philoctetes out of the
cave. Naturally, he thinks he is going to be taken perforce to Troy,
and the persuasive words spoken by Neoptolemus, with the bow still
in his hands, go for nothing. They are mere words; and words have
been used before to his detriment. 46 But now comes a deed (rovpyov,
44
Pace Rose 75, we should not regard the pity of the Chorus, here any more than at
i69ff, as hypocritical. Their attitude - a combination of weak pity and strong
self-interest - does not vary, and by not varying provides, as it were, an axis
against which we can plot the movements of their captain's emotions. Their line
at 1178 is perfectly natural in people arguing with a stubborn man: 'All right, if
that is what you want, it suits me.'
45
Cave: ioHiff. Bow: ii2«ff. Birds: H46ff. Foot: u88f.
46
There are three notable accumulations of words of saying in the play, (i) 895ff. (see
Philoctetes 295
(i375)> Yes; g° t o Troy and the most hated son of Atreus, no. His
friend is wanting to betray him to his foes (1386). 'Please', says
Neoptolemus, 'learn to be less stubborn in misfortune.' But Philo-
ctetes will not understand (1389); even with the prospect of salvation,
he will not join those who cast him out; enmity wins out over
friendship. What, then, do we make of Philoctetes' long speech, in
which he argues rationally, and in which he denies that his refusal was
dictated by his past sufferings? Much has been made of it by some
interpreters.
When Neoptolemus comments (1373) that his arguments are
'reasonable' (eikota), we should bear in mind that he is made to use a
word associated with the rhetorical theory of the late fifth century; 50
and this is perhaps a sign that we should look carefully at his argumen-
tation (as indeed we should always look at such argumentative
passages in Greek tragedy). Philoctetes is making a case. His final
argument — an argumentum ad hominem - is ironical. How, he asks, can
Neoptolemus go to Troy and help those who have outraged him
(i363ff.)? It is ironical, because the young man cannot disabuse his
friend without raking over his lies, of which he is still the prisoner,
and so damage his new credit. The fact remains that this evidence for
the villainy of the Atridae is spurious and Philoctetes is trying to turn
his friend against his enemies on non-existent grounds. What does he
say about them on his own account? The Atridae have destroyed him,
the son of Laertes is panoles (i356f.). After this emotionally charged
language — indeed after the long build-up of the theme of resentment
and hatred - it is hard to accept from him that 'it is not algos for the
past' that stings him or even (a typical argument from probability) the
thought of how they will treat him now, though that might have
more truth, being a plausible emotional reaction - and one whose
plausibility has been established by the remarkable words which have
preceded. 'How, if I do this', he asks, 'shall I come into the light of
day? To whom shall I speak?' And this is followed by perhaps the
most astonishing of his personifications, when he addresses his own
promises which are held out to him if he will be false to it' (Linforth (1956) 148).
At 1383 Jebb's objection to aj<f>€Xovfj.€vog is well based; Buttmann's axpeXwv
<f>i\ovs, though quite uncertain, is attractive, fitting into the sequence 1375, 1377,
I38sf. (See also Fraenkel, Sew. 75.)
50
On arguments from probability-of which 1358-61 is a typical example-see W.
K. C. Guthrie, A history of Greek Philosophy HI (Cambridge 1969) I78f; G.
Kennedy, The art ofpersuasion in Greece (Princeton, N.J. 1963) 3of. and elsewhere.
Philoctetes 297
eyes and asks them how they will tolerate his association with the sons
of Atreus (1354-6). 51
With this we return to an old question. What happens to a man - a
great hero - when he has been cut off from human society for ten
years? Rebuking Philoctetes, Neoptolemus used the word riyplcooai
(1321): 'you have been brutalized'. But isolation amid the sole com-
pany of beasts (i83ff.) has not turned him into a 'wild man' snarling
like an animal at anyone who approaches. With a Neoptolemus he
can resume a social relationship easily enough and even, subject to a
difference of status, with the Chorus: not, however, with those who
have wronged him so cruelly. Is this from a detached moral judge-
ment that they are bad (as indeed they did act badly)? Is it the rejection
of a world from which true heroism has departed? There is no hint of
this in the decisive dialogue which ensues, which turns not on virtue
and villainy, but on friendship and enmity, on benefit and harm. But
these latter were fundamental categories of the heroic code in which
Philoctetes was bred. We can now see that Lemnos, with all its
loneliness and agony, has not turned him from a hero into a beast:
what it has done is to intensify - and render wholly intractable - that
heroic resentment of injury and hatred of enemies which we have
seen to dominate the play. It has caused the negative aspect of the code
to occupy the whole of his emotion, so that he is bound to reject the
plea of Neoptolemus' friendship - and even the prospect of heroic
glory. We wait for Heracles.
that Troy did fall, and they have heard the prophecy that it will fall to
two specific heroes. The action has, however, now worked itself out
upon the human plane in such a way that, given the nature of
Neoptolemus and the experience of Philoctetes, given their respective
decisions, the latter cannot, willingly or unwillingly, be brought to
Troy. Each has faced a dilemma and made his decision. Neoptolemus
cannot have it both ways: he cannot both respond to pity and serve his
leaders, both maintain his standard of honour and win martial glory.
Philoctetes cannot preserve his resentment and win cure, glory and
happiness. Their combined decisions seem to be frustrating the inten-
tions of the gods. We must now consider briefly how, and with what
emphasis, these intentions enter into the play. 55
That Troy is to fall, but not for ten years, are facts given without
hint of a motive behind the dispensation. It is also given that Troy will
fall to Philoctetes; and, in order that it may not fall to the inerrable
bow of Heracles too soon, Philoctetes must be held on Lemnos. So
said the young Neoptolemus in the Parodos (19iff.), in words which,
if glib, were presumably true. Does this mean that the gods were
responsible for the callousness of the Greeks? The issue is not raised in
such terms, but Neoptolemus again, in the closing scene, attributes
Philoctetes' sufferings to the gods (13 i6f), just as the Chorus had told
him to blame, not human trickery, but potmos daimonon (m6ff.). If
both speakers had a motive for taking responsibility off the Greeks,
the fact remains that Philoctetes had, like other Sophoclean heroes, a
given divinely appointed fate. On the other side of the balance-sheet
are cure and glory. But it is no easier to speak of compensation here
than in the case of the Colonean Oedipus. 56 No easier, and far less
important, since nowhere in the play are we invited to judge — or even
speculate about — the purposes, motives or methods, of the gods. As
for Troy, we are not concerned that Troy shall fall, or why it should
fall, but how, in view of the dramatic situation presented, it can fall.
This, to some extent, governs the tone of the play, beneath the
brilliant surface of which, with its shifts and tantalizing uncertainties,
there are deep and poignant emotions, though whether we are to call
them tragic is no doubt a matter of definition. It may be tragic that a
still to the monstrous pain of his sickness, to rot in idleness in Oeta as he did on
Lemnos*; Easter ling, ICS 36f.
55
For a different view, cf. Segal, Hermes passim.
56
See p. 255 above.
Philoctetes 299
man like Philoctetes is subjected to such a fate, but that is not the
central dramatic issue. The pious Sophocles constantly surprises us;
the ironist operates at the divine level also. It is ironical that Neopto-
lemus, by behaving well, should endanger the designs of the gods;57
and the very prophecy has its ironical aspect.58 Philoctetes must go to
Troy as a free agent, yet it is, apparently, what the gods - and not
merely the Greeks — have done to him that makes this virtually
impossible. Can the gods have it both ways? Of course they can: they
are gods. They send Heracles.
Everything that has been said so far about the divine world of the
play could be disproved by Heracles in a couple of sentences. It is
therefore important to consider what he says and what he does not
say. Indeed one must consider his role, which is twofold: he performs
a double function, as spokesman of Zeus and as a persuasive friend.
That he is the last - and the successful - persuader has been denied,
presumably because he speaks with authority and Philoctetes com-
plies with a word of obedience (1447).59 But the personal relationship
is stressed from the beginning, when Heracles says he has come for the
sake of Philoctetes (he does not say at the command of Zeus). The
compliance of Philoctetes is preceded by a touching greeting (i445f),
and in his last words (to which we shall return) he attributes his being
brought to Troy, in part, to 'the advice of friends1. Not only was it
necessary that this should happen, but it was psychologically plausible
that Heracles should succeed where Odysseus, the Chorus and even
Neoptolemus had failed.60
But what does Heracles say? First he speaks briefly in anapaests,
calling his utterances muthoi (1410, 1417) - a more dignified term
which may be thought to contrast with the ineffective logoi of
Neoptolemus; and the word is picked up later by Philoctetes (1447).
He has come, he says, to expound the counsels of Zeus and to stop the
57
'Neoptolemus is now acting honestly, which raises the presumption that he is
doing what the gods would have him do' (Kitto, FMD 126). But this perhaps
takes too favourable - or at least too simple - a view of the Sophoclean gods. Cf.
Adams 18, answered by Poe 25 n. 52.
58
The point is made by Alt, 153f., whose intelligent examination of the play retains
its value, even if one cannot accept all her conclusions. Cf. also Segal, Hermes 142.
59
But see Easterling, ICS 31.
60
And Sophocles has given an unobtrusive demonstration of how the deus-ex-
machina convention could be used without that discontinuity of tone we find so
often in Euripides.
300 Philoctetes
It is unlikely that interpreters will ever agree about the precise tone of
the play's close. To leave the scene even of desolation and agony may
be a poignant thing, and the emotions of Philoctetes, as he apostro-
phizes - these are his last personifications - the 'house' that has shared
his watches, the mountain that has echoed his cries, and all the natural
features of the island, are deep and complex. 67 But how do we, the
audience, react to his sudden acceptance of destiny? The riddle is
solved - the riddle of how Philoctetes can be brought to Troy - and
not by mere fiat of the gods, since we can see why he should respond
to the friendship of Heracles. But is this more than the sleight-of-hand
of a consummate dramatist? Do we say that tragedy has yielded to
mythology, to history? After all, the callous Greeks do get the help of
Philoctetes, Odysseus - a cynical realist who will not care how the
desired success is brought about - gets his way. I doubt if Sophocles
invites us to think along these lines. Do we say that the gods, despite
all appearances, have ordered everything for the best?
The play has two 'endings'; and it would contradict its whole trend
and the whole artistry of Sophocles, if the 'second ending' deprived
66
See p. 309 n. 16.
67
Knox, HT 141. I cannot accept the suggestion of Vidal-Naquet, I79f., that the
natural world of the island is now presented under a different - and pastoral -
aspect.
302 Philoctetes
the 4first ending' of all its value. It remains that Neoptolemus, out of
pity and a scrupulous adherence to a concept of honour, was prepared
to sacrifice his own interests; that the calculations of Odysseus were in
the way to be defeated; that the cruelty of the Greeks was faced with
an apparent nemesis. Philoctetes, against his own interests, is to
preserve his heroic resentment; and we are both glad and sorry, since
the prospect before him is still a miserable one. We are glad and sorry
for them both. And if tragedy is to be found anywhere in the play, it is
in the tragic consequences of a cruel act and in the tragic implications
of a heroic, code. The question which arises is whether the 'second
ending' is more than a mechanical negation of these consequences.
Philoctetes is to be cured at Troy, and can only be cured at Troy. 68
It has been suggested that he is not only cured physically but, by his
reintegration into society, cured mentally as well. Is it emotionally
valid for the audience that he is to resume relations with the Greek
community as a whole? Heracles is careful to say nothing about the
Greek leaders, but he speaks of the strateuma (1425, 1429) as the
context of Philoctetes' future glory. He will be back in the army. Do
we say more - that, having found a friend of like mind, he forms with
him a new heroic community and with him enters upon a heroic
enterprise?69 These are questions not easily answered, but there is one
passage which Sophocles wrote which ought not be ignored.
'Bear this in mind, when you lay waste the land, to show piety
towards the gods. All else is of less account in the sight of father Zeus.
Piety does not die with men: it does not perish, whether they live or
die' (1440-4). The subsequent history of Philoctetes is of no legendary
interest, but Neoptolemus had a future. The young man who, in the
play, shows a pity which was not obviously a part of the Achillean
tradition was destined to kill, at the altar, an old man whom his father
had respected and spared. The reference is utterly clear: it seems
gratuitous, but Sophocles, the most controlled of playwrights, does
not deal in the gratuitous. More than once, towards the end of a play,
he opens a window upon a tragic future.70 This was not a quirk of his;
68
The 'inconsistency' between I437f. and 1333f- is not only harmless (cf. Jebb) but
deliberate. Neoptolemus can only promise the services of the Asclepiads, who
were members of the Greek army and so suspect to Philoctetes: Heracles can send
the god himself!
69
Cf. Steidle 187; J. U. Schmidt, Sophokles Philoktet, eine Strukturanalyse (Heidel-
berg 1973), 246f; Easter ling, ICS 37f.
70
The three clear examples all occur in 'happy ending' plays.
Philoctetes 303
it was not a quirk that at the end of the Coloneus he sent Antigone to
Thebes or (I believe), in Electra, that Aegisthus was made to refer to
future ills of the Pelopidae. The references are ironical and relevant to
the tragic themes of the plays. It may be suggested, then, that in
Philoctetes the poet has introduced these impressive lines as a hint of
what is waiting for Neoptolemus at Troy, of the world in which
martial heroes live and the temptations to which they are liable.
Before we become sentimental about that pair of lions, we should
remember that lions are fierce predators and owe their force in
metaphor to their ferocity; before we acclaim the joint mission of the
two heroic friends, we should reflect, momentarily, upon what
precisely they are going to do, that not only Paris but old Priam will
be among the victims, that the pity and scruple of Neoptolemus will
disappear in the heat of battle and sack.
No two assumptions have more persistently bedevilled the interpre-
tation of Sophocles than these: (i) that the values for which his heroes
stand, destroying themselves and others, are, simply and necessarily,
right in the eyes of the poet; and (ii) that the will of the gods is not
only just but also benevolent and must be seen to be so. The pietists
and the 'hero-worshippers' are equally below the measure of the
poet's tragic vision, which owes its character both to the limitations of
the heroes and to the conditions which the gods impose upon them.
To these matters we must now turn.
CHAPTER THIRTEEN
To say that the situations of his heroes are striking and sometimes
astonishing might seem merely a comment upon Greek mythology
as such. Famous figures of myth, they are seen in situations provided
by the myth. But the handling and the emphasis are Sophoclean. We
are familiar with the idea that Euripides looked at such figures and
asked himself — and invited his audience to ask — how they might
appear in a more or less contemporary light. Sophocles, remaining
firmly within the mythical frame, sometimes seems to be asking a
rather different question, which is: what happens to a hero, to a man
or woman of heroic background and standards, when he is exposed to
certain pressures, particularly over a long period of time. Time, and
the effects of time, are indeed a staple theme in Sophocles.
The Sophoclean hero is lonely: isolated from men, he may feel
himself also abandoned by the gods; monos and eremos are key-
words. 2 Of all the heroes this is most literally true of Philoctetes, who
has been alone on Lemnos for ten years; and it is an essential interest of
the play to discover what happens to a great hero when he is thus cut
off, an outcast from human society. What has time done to him? Since
Philoctetes is a late play, we might be tempted to suppose this a late and
sophisticated exploration on the part of Sophocles. 3 Yet, turning to
the relatively early Ajax, we find a hero who, in a different and
equally extraordinary way, is alone, isolated (as the Chorus sees) in his
own mental world (<f>p€vosolofiwras) - isolated even from his friends,
not so far from what we sometimes call the 'private world' of a
madman. He too broods over a wrong; he too has a malady. Where
the malady of Philoctetes is objective and physical, that of Ajax is his
own megalomaniac pride. Both are the victims of time, but the
time-span in the case of Ajax is shown in the receding perspective of
the play, to be longer. Both cases belong in their different ways to the
pathology of heroism. 4
Here are two extraordinary conceptions within the heroic world,
separated (probably) by some thirty years or more of the dramatic
2
Cf. J. Jones 214. On the vocabulary cf. Knox, HT }2f.
3
Cf. Rosen. 17.
4
The statement is provocative, but (I trust), as regards Ajax, substantiated by the
examination of the themes of madness and disease in an earlier chapter (ch. 2
passim). It is the pathe of Philoctetes that so intensify his heroic resentment that,
despite all advantage and short of the persuasions of Heracles, it is impossible for
him to aid the Greeks. On the difference between the two cases c(. Poe 17 and n.
41.
306 Heroes and gods
would hardly find adherents today. It is, however, often said that his
personages are 'aristocrats' (which in some sense they are), and that he
was concerned, like Pindar, to promote aristocratic ideals.12 In this
delicate field of enquiry, beset by the dangers of subjectivity and even
sentimentality, semantic studies of individual words and groups of
words can be valuable. It is said, for inscance, that, again like Pindar,
Sophocles was a strong believer in hereditary excellence. Phusis (and
related words) occur not infrequently in his plays, if not quite so
prominently as is sometimes suggested; and there is no doubt that he
did believe in the significance of heredity, as aristocrats did, though
not only aristocrats.13 The theme is more prominent in some plays
than in others: notably so in Philoctetes, where it is much stressed that
Neoptolemus derives his phusis from Achilles, betrays it and then
redeems himself: acting in accordance with his phusis (though also
out of pity), he does, within the terms of the play, act well. Ajax
derives his phusis from Telamon, whom he is bent on equalling or
surpassing, and hopes that he has transmitted it to Eurysaces (who
must still be schooled), but that play is concerned with the hard and
potentially destructive aspects of heroism. Antigone takes after a
father who is largely unknown to us, but the quality she owes to him
(so the chorus sees it) is one of hardness or harshness. Electra, it would
seem, owes her phusis to both parents: explicitly to her mother, as in a
bitter moment she admits, and by implication to her father (whatever
that connotes).14 The notion is virtually absent, like some other
Sophoclean features, from Oedipus Tyrannus, except for the scene at
the cross-roads in which father and son may be thought to show a
likeness (but Laius is not otherwise characterized in the play). It enters
into the Coloneus in a surprising way, when Antigone questions the
right of a father to retaliate upon a son for whose phusis he is
responsible.15
12
In which case one might perhaps have expected a Pindaric view of the Ajax/
Odysseus situation, cf. Nem. 7.24-7.
13
On heredity in popular thought from the late fifth century see Dover, GPM 88flF.
A comprehensive review of phusis-words in Sophocles will be found in C. E.
Hajistephanou, The use of<PYEIE and its cognates in Greek tragedy with special
reference to character drawing (Nicosia 1975) 9-54.
14
El. 6o8f. (Clytemnestra); 1081 (Agamemnon), on which seep. 245 n. 91. What do
we learn about Agamemnon in the play except that he was a great general,
sacrificed his daughter, was hated and murdered by his wife?
15
See also - though this is more speculative - p. 276 n. 79.
Heroes and gods 309
16
Pointed out by Torrance (272). The one exception is Phil 669 (on which see ch. 12
p. 286). On Phil. 1420 see ch. 12 p. 301: seen in the light of 1425, here too arete is
essentially martial. On the survival of this narrower sense, cf. Dover, GPM 164.
17
O f eleven cases five are in Phil. Three are sarcastic: Ant. 3 i(cf. ch. 5 p. 129), Trach.
541 (cf. ch. 4 p. 82), Phil. 873. Strictly, O.T. 687 should not be counted, since
ayaOos is qualified by yva)fxr)v. Though there may be some notion of honesty or
loyalty, the intellectual sense is carried through into napa^poviixov and <f>povifj.a
(691) and would comport well with the reading npovoovfievw at 685 (but contr.
Da we, STS 238).
18
Seventeen cases. Of women: Trach. 1105, El 1089 (cf. ch. 10 p. 242), O.C. 1693.
19
For a useful review, cf. Dover, GPM 93-5.
310 Heroes and gods
cases, however, the words are used with specific reference to an issue
of conduct; and of course it is these which are important and (espe-
cially with eugenes) raise the question of inherited excellence. It is
particularly striking, for instance, when Ajax says (Aj. 479f) that the
man of noble birth must either live nobly (KCLXWS) or be noble in his
death and Tecmessa replies with a persuasive re-definition ofeugeneia
(524).20 The same word is heard on the lips of Antigone (Ant. 38) and
of Electra (El. 257), in their respective situations and of their respec-
tive parentage. Ajax was once gennaios, says Odysseus (Aj. 1355); and
it is followed by a reference to arete.21
The purpose of this summary review, if it inspires a little caution, is
certainly not to deny that the notion of inherited excellence is present
in Sophocles. His personages are heroes, to whom heredity is impor-
tant; they have standards and principles to which they are prepared to
sacrifice everything, even life; and this is a point of honour. To say
that they belong to the heroic world is true, but not enough. Sopho-
cles did not retreat into that world, nor did he re-create its personages
as an exercise of the historical imagination. And if we say (what is
obvious) that the doings and sufferings of his heroes are relevant to his
own time, it is insufficient to point to the broad general categories,
pervasive though they are in Sophoclean drama, such as the fragility
of human fortunes and the pathetic fallibility of human knowledge
and judgement. The issues, the standards and the principles, are also
relevant. But how, precisely?
Several questions present themselves. Are these heroes, with their
pride of ancestry, their sense of honour, their 'idealism' and obstinate
courage, recognizable as 'aristocrats'? Before answering that ques-
tion, we must be sure that these values and virtues are not simply those
of a traditional morality, first heroic, then aristocratic, but which by
the fifth century have percolated downwards to become part and
parcel of Greek morals. Or is Sophocles taking sides? Taking sides
with the conservatives, with those who wished to maintain certain
(allegedly) aristocratic values and virtues? And before we answer that
question, we should reflect that, when these heroes put their princi-
ples into action, the consequences are tragic; we should wonder
20
See ch. 2 p. 29.
21
It can be a 'class-term', so linking (in the Coloneus) an Oedipus and a Theseus, cf.
76, 1042, 1636. At Phil. 1402 the gennaion epos of Neoptolemus is something more
than a splendid utterance.
Heroes and gods 311
24
For the negative bearing in O. T., see ch. 8.
25
Seep. 129 above.
26
It was not for nothing that Webster prefaced his An introduction to Sophocles with a
quotation from Proust: 4Les grands litterateurs n'ont jamais fait qu'une seule
oeuvre.
Heroes and gods 313
mind; moreover, it divides his world into friends and enemies who
for him constitute, or should (he feels) constitute, irreconcilable
camps. In one way or another he seeks to retrieve his position, to
restore his honour or the honour of his kin; and in the process he is, or
is like to be, destroyed. This pattern is clearest in Ajax, Antigone,
Electra, and Philoctetes; it is an important aspect of Oedipus Coloneus, *
minor feature in Trachiniae, and in Oedipus Tyrannus virtually absent.
It will be convenient now to take the plays out of their (hypothetical)
chronological order and, briefly, examine their themes, beginning
with two plays which, separated by decades, unfold in a context of
war. 27
Ajax might seem a simple matter of honour. 'The man of good
birth must either live nobly or be noble in his death/ Ajax has no way
of retrieving his honour in life, and so he kills himself. Honour is
conferred by society. Ajax thinks it has been unjustly withheld from
him by the Judgement of the Arms, which he resents to such a degree
that he goes out to murder the Greek leaders as they sleep. He is
frustrated by Athena; and this is the second and ultimate blow to his
honour which necessitates his suicide. Sophocles has been at pains to
show that the pride of Ajax is so hypertrophied as to be irreconcilable
even with heroic society, a mental sickness, grown pathological in the
course of time. Attempts have been made to extract a milder, wiser
Ajax from the famous Deception Speech, even to represent his suicide
as an act of sophrosune: on the contrary, it is the final assertion of his
pride and his difference, the final rejection of a society whose values he
has carried to an intolerable extreme. He dies calling upon the Erinyes
to avenge him not only upon the Atridae but upon the whole Greek
army - upon those who should have been his friends but have proved
enemies. With Ajax is contrasted Odysseus, the 'enemy' who ends by
acting as a friend, refusing to accept that rigid polarity of friendship
and enmity which was part of the creed of Ajax; a man of different
temper who perhaps foreshadowed a different age; 28 a man who,
knowing the fragility of human fortunes, was capable of pity.
Philoctetes, like Ajax, had come to hate the Atridae and Odysseus.
If Ajax had fought for ten years only to be cheated (as he thought) of
his just reward, Philoctetes had spent those same ten years upon a
27
The following account assumes the results of detailed analysis in the preceding
chapters, by which it stands or falls.
28
See ch. 3 pp. 7if.
3 14 Heroes and gods
desert island in company with a foul disease. As the action of the play
unfolds, he is confronted with a dilemma. Not to mention the cure of
his wound, this once mighty hero is offered the prospect of sharing
the supreme honour of taking Troy, a thing which Achilles and Ajax
and Diomede and the rest had failed to do; and, hero though he is, he
rejects it. Some critics have argued that he rejects it because of the
moral inferiority of the remaining Greek leaders, being unwilling to
associate his heroism with their baseness, but the seductions of this
hypothesis must be resisted. He rejects it, because it conflicts with
another part of the heroic code, which is to resent an injury and
pursue a grievance to the extreme point. And the reason why this
prevails over the prospect of glory is to be found in the circumstances
of the ten years' solitude during which he has brooded over his
wrongs. Hatred of his enemies has become something he cannot
abandon; he cannot benefit himself, if this means benefiting them.
With him is contrasted Odysseus, who, as in Ajax, belongs to another
world, but in its most repugnant aspect: a man of adaptable standards,
who will be just and pious when he can, but will sacrifice everything
to success. More important is Neoptolemus, who shares the main
interest of the play. He has inherited a heroic - or if you will an
aristocratic - code which does not reject violence but rejects deceit.
For a time he is seduced by Odysseus, but repents, not simply because
the deceit revolts him, but because he turns out to be one of those who
are capable of pity — and of acting on it, even to his own detriment. 29
Antigone and Electra, also separated in time, fall to be considered
together: both 'family' plays, each with a formidable heroine who
owes a duty derived from kinship. Antigone's duty is to bury, with
humanity and decency on her side; Electra's to avenge by matricide.
For Electra it is a point of honour first to lament and then to avenge
her father, and no consideration of caution or moderation weighs
with her; when she believes her brother dead, she urges Chrysothemis
to join with her in killing Aegisthus (and by implication Clytemnes-
tra) and so win honour in life and in death. 'For those who are nobly
born it is shameful to live shamefully' (989); and the Chorus sings that
'none of the good, by living a base life, is willing to shame his fair
repute, leaving no name' (io82ff.), and that Electra is winning the
noblest renown for observing the greatest natural laws, for her piety
29
And will, alas, go on to kill Priam at the altar. On the vexed interpretation of the
final scene, see ch. 12 pp. 301 flf.
Heroes and gods 315
towards Zeus - the laws being those which demand filial piety. 30 But
piety towards one parent demands the sacrifice of the other, about
which Electra has no qualms: indeed she is consumed with hatred for
her. What is certain, in a play of vexed interpretation, is that her
obsessive grief and obsessive hatred are the product of a long process
of time which precedes and prepares the matricide. They are the work
of Furies, of whom she is both the victim and the agent. 31
Antigone is rendered complex by the contrasted tragedies of Creon
and Antigone - tragedies of different type of which Antigone's is
typically Sophoclean. There is also a contrast of principles and of
character. She acts out of an emotion which is at once narrow and
generous: she is no reasoner, and the other side of the case simply does
not exist for her. That other side is put by Creon, but the poet
deliberately undercuts his position and shows his rationality as more
apparent than real. He is crude and insensitive, and the sympathies of
poet and audience are with Antigone, who, however, could not have
done what she did, if she had not been hard, with a hardness inherited
from her father. She too is made by her past, but the intensity of her
emotion is the product, not (as with Electra) of long eroding time, but
of a brief experience of unimaginable horror which has given her an
obsession with the world of the dead. It is to this world that her
'friends' belong; and it is in and through that world that, by a heroic
resolve, she would cancel the hatreds which have dogged the house,
retrieve its honour, declare peace and the restoration of love. 32 Seeing
things always in terms of'friends' and 'enemies', she claims that it is
her nature to join in friendship rather than in enmity, but, when her
sister, who had failed to share her heroism, seeks out of mere affection
to share her death, she casts her out into the ranks of the enemy. The
heroic polarity prevails, as it will prevail in Oedipus Coloneus.
The work of time; heredity; friends and enemies; resentment and
retaliation; the return of good for good and evil for evil; pity and the
absence of pity. In the Coloneus all these familiar Sophoclean themes
are present, woven into an intricate fabric: what marks it out is the
ultimate destiny of an Oedipus who had seemed to be the paradigm of
human fragility, of the breach between gods and men. Oedipus
becomes a heros. Unlike the man of the Tyrannus, whose past is
J0
See ch. 10 pp. 242f.
31
Seech. 10 p. 228.
32
On the central importance of Ant. 508-25, see ch. 5 pp. 13 iff.
316 Heroes and gods
Yet they were deliberate actions, and in both cases they were the
product of a past way of life, though in Deianira's case a paradoxical
product. There is paradox and irony too in the case of Heracles. His
career had consisted in a series of ordeals by which he had benefited
humanity, freeing the Greek world of noxious monsters. If we look
for a guiding principle of his life, he gives it to us, when he says: 'Both
living and dead, I have retaliated upon the evil' (1111); and it seems
that this theme - of retaliation and the perpetuation of evil through
talio - is given some prominence in the later stages of the play. 33 The
irony is that his final ordeal, which Lichas invited us to see in terms of
revenge, turns out to have been performed in pursuit of a lust; it is the
monster that has his revenge.
This summary should have brought out two things: the frequent
recurrence of certain themes and issues closely bound up with the
heroism of the heroes, but also the variety of circumstance and tone
and implication with which the themes are treated. The recurrences
are important if we would form some general notion of the heroes
and what they stand for; the variety, which involves the whole
richness of the individual plays, should be cautionary when we come
to generalize. One generalization at least is valid. The heroes have a
dimension of greatness beyond the measure of normal humanity:
they go on where ordinary men would stop. It is a kind of excess, and
excess is dangerous. About their greatness there are two things to be
said. It is just because they have this almost superhuman capacity of
holding to their principles that the poet, through extreme cases, is able
to unfold the tragic implications of those principles. Secondly, this
kind of greatness does not comport with the conditions of mortal
existence and tends towards disaster. If this is no world for them, as it
is not, we are bound to ask how Sophocles saw the world in which
they suffer their tormented destinies; and if it is governed by divine
powers, as for Sophocles it was, to ask how he saw the gods at work in
it.
Sophocles was a religious man. He held the priesthood of a minor
deity. When a cult of Asclepius was being introduced into Athens
during the Peloponnesian War, he took the god - or at least the sacred
snake - into his house while a shrine was being prepared. The cult of
the Eumenides at Colonus, where he was born, is described in loving
33
See ch. 9 pp. 212ft".
318 Heroes and gods
detail, and all the sanctities of the place are celebrated in an ode. That
he believed in the gods is certain, but how, precisely, he envisaged the
anthropomorphic pantheon we are in no position to say. Nor is the
question very important. 34 Crude anthropomorphism was only one
expression of Greek religious experience; and polytheism was the
more acceptable that the gods were a part of nature and, being gods of
power, reflected, as the Greek gods did, those aspects of life - physical,
social, and emotional — where power resided and some impulse
outside man was felt, feared or desired.
The personal religion of Sophocles is a matter of pure speculation:
how religion and the gods enter into his tragedy we can attempt to
discern, but must bear in mind that conventional piety need not
imply untroubled acceptance of every thing and anything attributable
to the divine world. Greek polytheism represents the world as it
impinges upon men. And as it is it must be accepted? A good pagan
position, but even pagans are strangely reluctant to accept paganism.
Are the gods just? Are men free? Greeks, like others, wrestled with
these questions. The anxious wrestlings of Aeschylus, in particular,
are reflected in the work of Sophocles at every point.
In the extant plays gods are seldom seen upon the stage. We have
Heracles in Philoctetes, but it is essential to his role that he was recently
a man and much of what he says is at the human level: indeed qua
spokesman of heaven he says very little. We have Athena in Ajax; and
of her function something has been said in earlier chapters. 35 Her role
in the Prologos may be thought ambiguous, but is clarified by the
words of Calchas, so that we see why she makes that pronouncement
of the grounds of divine favour and disfavour: we see that her 'wrath',
which Ajax rightly recognizes without understanding its cause, was
the appropriate penalty for his pride. Constantly, however, there are
gods in the background, generally and specifically.
There is Aphrodite (with Eros). Athena punishes, but does not
cause, the nature and action of Ajax: Aphrodite has worked power-
fully within both Heracles and Deianira. It may be a misleading
34
People today who have a firm belief in a personal god do not in fact envisage him
as an old man with a long white beard. Iconography is one thing; theology is
another. Sophocles may have thought the Apollo at Olympia a worthy represen-
tation of the god; he may have seen something of Athena both in the ancient bretas
and in the cult-statue by Pheidias (which cannot have been quite so hideous as late
copies suggest).
35
See ch. 2 pp. 4 i f
Heroes and gods 3 19
accident that this power is prominent in two of the extant plays and
hymned in both. 3 6 We must, however, take what we are given and
recognize an aspect of the divine world of Sophocles which is seldom
stressed, but should not be ignored. The power of sexual passion
operating on, and in, the human mind is generative of tragedy
because men may break under the strain and perform disastrous acts.
There is some reason to suppose that Sophocles, like Aeschylus before
him and like Euripides, saw another god of overwhelming emotion,
Dionysus, as a potentially disastrous power. 3 7 Both these powers are
divine and part of the given world in which men have to play out
their destinies. They are given, like the individual fates, and men have
not asked for them.
There is Apollo, who enters particularly into the story of Oedipus,
prominent in the Tyrannus, less so in the Coloneus. In the Tyrannus
one gets the impression that Apollo is working against Oedipus,
which is how the latter sees it (1329^). What, then, is Apollo's
interest? 38 Like Athena in Ajax, to punish a deliberate offence against
divine law? The Chorus uses language of the unknown offender
which might suggest such a thing (463-82), in an ode which imme-
diately follows the all but explicit revelations of Teiresias. But
Oedipus was not a deliberate offender. He was, however, deeply
polluted; and Apollo was a god much concerned with pollution and
purification. Or do we say that, as the god who knows what is to be
and has foretold it, he has an interest in the fulfilment of his oracle? So
stated, this sounds rather jejune. Better, perhaps, to remember that in
Greek thought he was associated with the notion of self-knowledge
{yvwOi oavrov). This Oedipus is to acquire and becomes a symbol of
human ignorance as Apollo and his oracle are symbols of divine
knowledge. 3 9
Above and beyond Apollo, in point of knowledge and in point of
power, stands Zeus. As in Homer, as in Aeschylus, he is the supreme
authority, the divine king. 4 0 The Chorus of the Tyrannus, when they
think (how wrongly!) that oracles are not being fulfilled, pray to Zeus
36
Though it can hardly have failed to be prominent in Phaedra among other plays.
37
See ch. 5 pp. uoff.
38
Seech. 7 p. 178.
39
Seech. 8 p. 181 n. 4.
40
The search for unity amid polytheism, which was a natural development of
thought, was facilitated by the essentially anthropomorphic conception of a
patriarchal family.
320 Heroes and gods
cration at the divine level of that polar reaction towards friends and
enemies which haunts the theatre of Sophocles, an endorsement of
that notion of justice which is closely involved with friendship and
enmity.
This polarity is rejected, in their very different ways, by both
Antigones. The first Antigone refuses to admit the continuance of
hatred beyond the grave and determines by her own heroic act to end
it: she loves, but does not pity or persuade (which is not her nature),
and she comes to hate the living sister who loves her (which is
ironical). The second Antigone is the all-loving creature the first
Antigone thought herself to be. Her love extends to the brother who
had wronged her father, whose right to harm his harmful sons she
denies. She seeks to persuade, and she fails, and the tragic process
continues until it culminates in her own death. She fails, because her
pity beats upon a rock. 57
Pity is a common theme in Sophocles. Who has it? We tend to
concentrate attention upon the great unyielding heroes and regard
them as being typically Sophoclean. Pity, we may say, is shown by
minor characters, by a Hyllus or a Creon (O. T. 1473). This is hardly
true. Odysseus (in Ajax), Deianira and the Colonean Antigone, are
not to be written off so simply. The pity of Odysseus is structural to its
play. Deianira has equal rights with Heracles in Trachiniae. If Anti-
gone is a 'minor character' in the Coloneus, she is present almost
throughout the play, has her moment when she holds the stage, and
confronts us with her fate at the end. A pitying character is as
Sophoclean as a hero. Pity is an attribute of men rather than of gods.
Do the gods approve it in men? They do indeed seem to demand that
human-beings recognize the inferior status which they share in com-
mon, the recognition of which makes them capable of pity, though
this, if it wins the favour of Athena for Odysseus, does not save a
Deianira or (in the Coloneus) an Antigone. Hyllus, seeking the sym-
pathy of his fellow-men, asks them at the same time to recognize the
great agnomosune of the gods. He is hardly an impartial witness, but
the fact remains that pity is sought from men and not from gods, with
one notable exception. Knowing that he has come to a sanctuary of
the Awful Goddesses, Oedipus prays to them, addressing them as
'sweet daughters of ancient Darkness', to have pity on him. Which
57
O.C. I239ff. See ch. 11 p. 252 n. 10.
328 Heroes and gods
they do, by receiving him on his way to become a pitiless, yet loving,
heros.
That pity was for Sophocles a supreme value need hardly be
argued. Pity inspires every work of his that has come down to us -
pity and suggnome, that capacity to enter into the feelings of another
which made possible every aspect of his dramatic creation. But what
response to human pity did he find in the divine world? 58 Polynices
urged his father to show aidos towards him, saying that Aidos shares
the throne of Zeus in all he does. Aidos from Oedipus to Polynices
means that he should respect a claim, the claim of a suppliant, of a
blood-relation; and it is doubtful whether Polynices by his own
conduct had the right to make such a claim. But what does it mean to
say that the goddess Aidos is the assessor of Zeus? Is it merely a
reference to Zeus in his function as Hikesios, protecting the suppliant?
But Polynices says in' epyots -naoi, 'in all his works': the reference
must be wider. There must be some suggestion of mercy or compas-
sion, some tempering of justice. Oedipus has his answer (138 if.),
when he in his turn asserts that primeval Justice sits with Zeus in
accordance with ancient laws; and that therefore his curses will
prevail. And they do. And Oedipus becomes a heros.
It might seem that, at the end of his life and of his long concern with
tragic events, Sophocles looked at the divine world and saw a pro-
found significance in the concept of a heros,59 meting out with a
rough justice good to friends and harm to enemies. It is a just world,
but the divine justice turns out to bear a sinister resemblance to that
kind of retaliatory justice in pursuing which men themselves bring
about tragic events. The resemblance is ironical. The gods, them-
selves immune from disaster, exercise their awful sovereignty at a
distance, but the heroes are in the midst of things. Born with arbitrary
destinies for which they have not asked, placed in situations which
preclude any outcome which is not tragic, they pursue their god-like
code with a consistency and energy which is more than human, but,
being men and not gods, they come to grief. It is not, however, their
fallible humanity alone which is responsible for the disasters and the
ironies, but something deep-seated in a world where human nature
and society mirror - or are mirrored by - the dictates of the gods.
58
On Aj. 756f., where the further wrath of Athena is limited to one day, see ch. 2 pp.
4if. It is not said, or necessarily implied, that the goddess had pity on the hero.
59
On Sophocles and hero-cult, c(. Knox, HT $4.ff.
Heroes and gods 329
APPENDIXA
In the Parodos the alternation of joy and sorrow is symbolized by the great
alternating process of nature, day and night. It is the consoling argument of
the Chorus that sorrow cannot last for ever, but will give place to joy as night
gives place to day, and Deianira should therefore not reject good hope. This
they have in mind as they sing, but the words which Sophocles gives them
may suggest that she is right not to be so consoled. The handling of this
theme, particularly in the first stanza and the last, is a striking example of the
lyric subtlety of Sophocles.
In the first stanza, overtly, the Chorus appeal to the sun as the source of
knowledge, to tell them where Alcmena's son may be. The sun is XafiTTpd
Greponqi <f>A€y40a)v and Kparujrevcov KCLTJ ofxfxa. T h e first w o r d in the stanza
refers to the sun, but is a colourless relative (ov), the antecedent of which is
still unspecified. The first subject, the first noun, is vu£. (Compare the
twofold vv£ at 29f., there too with two verbs and the idea of succession, but a
succession of novoi.) Night which gives birth to the sun and puts the sun to
sleep. Thus the notion of alternation is introduced at the outset. Not only so.
If there is a double process, sunrise and sunset (and the stanza is rounded off
by a reference to the regions of sunrise and sunset),1 night is made the
grammatical subject and the operating force of both, so that, as it were, the
sun is put under the control of night; and this is a counterpoise to the brilliant
description of the sun as the source of knowledge. In fact, the blazing light of
the sun, in which and to which all is visible, is first heard of as extinguished
by the action of night (Karevvd^ci . . . ^Aoyi£d/z€vov).
The epode begins with fievei, as though a positive statement were coming,
but this is followed by OUT* aloXa vv£, which - noun and epithet - recall the
opening of the first stanza (and its aesthetics). Despite the negative - and
aided perhaps by the positive \x.£v€i — the emphasis is upon night, the more
strongly so that the alternative (day or sun) is not expressed. Instead of
1
Ring-composition. I accept Lloyd-Jones' interpretation of ioof. at CQ 4 (1954)
91-3, contr. Stinton 127-9.
330
The Parodos of Trachiniae 331
following OVT* aloXa vv£ with, e.g., OVT* ij/xap, the sentence continues with
OVT€ Krjp€s: 'calamities' (recalling nrjfia in 129). Then, surprisingly, we have
OVT€TTXOVTOS. Surprisingly, because wealth is not otherwise a theme in the
play nor is it apparently relevant to Deianira. But wealth is the obvious
proverbial example of the transitoriness of good fortune. And that is why it
is here introduced, as one 'good' thing (TTXOVTOS) after two 'bad' things (vu£,
K-ffpes), all involved in a process of alternation. But there is one respect in
which wealth differs from the earlier examples of the transitory. It involves
two human parties: the man who loses and the man who gains. Hence rw 8*
€7T€px€Tai(which is appropriate only to TTXOVTOS). Wealth, when it is lost by
one man (to his grief), passes to another, who rejoices, though he too may in
turn be deprived of it. It was necessary to introduce the notion ofjoy coming
to a man (since it is the argument of the Chorus that joy may come even to
Deianira), and this is done by no 8' inepx^Tai. But the force of \atp€iv is
immediately cancelled by orcpeodai. For it was also necessary to introduce
the idea of deprivation (not implied by vv£ or Krjpes)- Kamerbeek rightly
refers to 176f. (el fxe xpV l^eveiv \ Trdvrojv apiarov <f>ajrds €OT€prjfjL€VT)v,where
ti€V€ivmay recall /xevci at 132). Deianira has been deprived of her husband by
his absences and would be by his death, did she not forestall it with her own.
But there will also be a question of deprivation by a rival, though a rival who
has no joy in him. Deianira's kar€pi)^kvt)v (177) is immediately followed by
the entry of a messenger garlanded and bringing news of joy: 179, npos
Xapav Xoywv (where x^PLV should by no means be preferred). He brings joy
even to Deianira: w Zev . . . JZSCOKCLS -qyuv dAAa avv XP°VCP XaP^v ( 2 oof.). She
greets Lichas on the same note, and the theme ofjoy is brought out by a play
on words (227f.). Yet the captives who seem to provide evidence to support
her new-found joy in fact bring the evidence of her deprivation. Joy and
deprivation are as closely linked in the experience of Deianira as in the lyric
phrase: ^atpciv TC KCU crepeadai.
As to the 'argument' of the whole Parodos, there are two things to say. It is
obvious that such an argument is reversible: that, if the alternations of nature
are a just analogy and prove that sorrow is transitory, the same must also be
true of joy. But it may be more significant to ask whether the analogy of
natural process is not fallacious when applied to human life, at least to
Deianira's life, which (in Mrs Easterling's words) 'violates the natural
rhythm' whereby day follows night and night follows day. (Easterling,
BICS 59f., with her excellent comment on 175-7.) Her joy is a fallacious
false dawn, and the tenour of her life - her alwv (2) - remains dark to the
end. The emphasis is rightly on vv£; and Deianira belongs as surely to the
realm of night as Ajax shows himself to belong (see ch. 2 p. 5s). 2
2
'As the play begins, night dominates'. Cf. Segal, YCS i07f., H3f. (from which I
quote). His view of the aesthetics of the Parodos is broadly similar to mine, but he
332
APPENDIX B
Trachiniae 248ff.
There are features in Lichas' narrative which are extremely obscure; and it is
not enough to say that we ought not to demand complete clarity from an
embarrassed liar. It has long been recognized that what is impossibly obscure
to us may have been relatively clear to the original audience or to a large
section of it. What sources of information could Sophocles count on their
knowing? The epic OlxaXias aXwais, no doubt. Panyassis' epic on Heracles?
Sophocles himself may well have known this, if only through Herodotus,
but one cannot assume that it was widely known in Athens. The notion that
a recent stage treatment, e.g. the Eurytidae of Ion, lies behind the passage is
attractive (c(. T. B. L. Webster, Hermes 71 (1936) 267), but neither Ion's
tragedy nor his satyric t)mphale can be dated. Since none of these sources is
available to us, it is perhaps hardly worth speculating.
The basic lie of Lichas is about motives, not about facts. Heracles was
thrown out when drunk (Lichas would never have invented so discreditable
a story); he did kill Iphitus and was in servitude to Omphale - both tradi-
tional features. But (35iff.) it was not his servitude to Omphale in Lydia, i.e.
his resentment of it, nor the death of Iphitus which led to it, that motivated
his attack upon Oechalia, but his passion for Iole. When was that passion
conceived?
The Messenger tells us, i.e. Lichas had said, that Heracles asked for Iole as a
concubine (359f.), unsuccessfully. When? Hardly subsequent to the events of
262ff., including the slaying of Iphitus. We get the impression that the attack
followed immediately upon the end of his servitude, which was also a year of
purification (258ff.). (The petty pretexts of 361 are presumably implied in
254-8, 28iff. The Messenger knows nothing Lichas did not tell, and that
these were mere pretexts must therefore be the impression that Lichas gave.)
It is natural to suppose that Heracles' passion for Iole was conceived, and
expressed, during the original visit to her father's palace.
There is an odd feature in the story at 262ff., a great hiatus. A guest arrives,
a £ivos iraXaios. Immediately we hear of a quarrel, and a drunken Heracles is
thrown out of the palace. Odd, if quite gratuitous. Lichas of course wishes to
carries his examination of the themes further than I have done or, in some cases,
should care to do. T. F. Hoey, 'Sun symbolism in the parodos of the Trachiniae',
Arethusa 5 (1972) 133-54, also brings out the association of Deianira with night (p.
146), but I find his attempt to make an equation of Heracles with the sun less
successful. Nor am I convinced that the notion of cyclicity has that importance in
the development of the play which he attaches to it.
Trachiniae 248ff. 333
suggest that Eurytus and his sons were impossible hubristic people on whom
Heracles was quite justified in taking vengeance (cf. 278-80 and ch. 9, n. 26).
And this indeed they may have been (and there may have been epic and
dramatic substantiation of this). But one cannot help thinking that the lost
sources may have linked the quarrel and the drunkenness with Heracles'
lustful demand for Iole.
There is other evidence to link the drunken and the amorous Heracles. He
can of course get drunk (as in Alcestis) without becoming amorous. In Ion's
Omphale the Lydian queen tried to seduce him when he was drunk, cf frs. 26,
27, 29, but this is a satyr-play. In Euripides' Auge (frs. 265 268) he ascribes his
rape of Auge to the combined influences of lust and wine; and this may have
been traditional (c(. Alcidamas, Odyss. 14-16). Is it not possible, then, that
his pursuit of Iole lay behind the whole fracas? Did he ask for her company in
bed as an agreeable sequel to the dinner-party? One is reminded of the
Persian envoys in Herodotus 5.18-20. One is reminded of the centaurs, who
'intoxicated at the wedding feast, behaved very similarly'. I quote from
Susan Woodford, 'More light on old walls', JHS 94 (1974) 158—65. The
point is that Nessus was a centaur. I quote from Woodford again (pp. 16 if):
'Representations of Heracles fighting the centaur Nessus who has attempted
to carry off Heracles' wife convey something of the same message about the
difference between civilisation and savagery. They also portray the contrast
between self-control and self-indulgence, responsible guardianship and
irresponsible passion, lawful marriage and lawless rape, and they may have
pointed the way to the development of the theme of centauromachy at the
feast in art.' If there was such an iconographic tradition of the Heracles-
Nessus story, it could have been in the mind of Sophocles, to ironic effect.
Heracles is in fact betrayed by a lust comparable to that of the centaur he
killed.
This speculation is, however, complicated by the reference at 265-8 to the
hoplon krisis. There was a tradition which associated this contest with Iole
(Apollodorus 6.1.2), but, in default of further evidence, we can hardly hope
to bring it into relation with our passage. Another obscure feature is why
Heracles should have killed Iphitus by treachery, when he could have done
so by force. And there were several versions of the episode of the wandering
cattle. We can only envy the original audience for their superior knowledge.
(The textual difficulties of 262-9 are discussed by Stinton 133^).
334
APPENDIX C
The authenticity of P.V. has long been under suspicion. A careful and
unprejudiced examination of this problem by Mark Griffith (The authenticity
of 'Prometheus Bound', Cambridge 1977)-and particularly the metrical
evidence which he adduces - has made it hard to believe any longer in its
Aeschylean authorship. Whoever wrote it, it remains, however, an impor-
tant document closely related to Aeschylean thought; and it contains a
passage closely relevant to the themes discussed in chapter 7.
Prometheus, rebellious against Zeus, has said (iO3ff.) that he must bear his
fated destiny (TYJV 7r€7TpcofjL€vrjv ataav) as easily as he can, recognizing that the
force of ananke is irresistible. At 51 iff., in reply to the facile optimism of the
friendly Chorus, he states that his release from bondage is not predestined
until he has suffered a myriad torments. The language used is actually very
difficult, the basic difficulty being that the verb neTrpwrai is appropriate to
the 'portion' (cf. the common 7T€7TpwfjL€vrj fiolpa / aloa), whereas the verb
Kpdvai and the epithet reAccnfropos are appropriate to the 'apportioned.
There is a sort of conflation offiolpa TT€7rpojfjL€vrj with Moipa reAca^opos. It is
difficult, but not perhaps unintelligible: 'an accomplishing moira has been
given so as to bring about these things so'. (Whether Aeschylus did, or could
have, written this Greek might be a matter of debate.)
In any case, the notion, as at iO3ff., seems to be that of a rigid individual
fate; and, when Prometheus adds that 'art' (rexvrj, meaning his inventive
powers) is weaker far than ananke, we may recall 103. The passage continues
as follows. The Coryphaeus asks: 'Who then moves the tiller of ananke?' The
answer comes: 'The triformed Moirai and the mindful i^ivr^^ioves) Erinyes/
'Is Zeus then weaker than these?' 'He could not escape his destined fate (TTJV
7T€7rpajfi€vrfv).' 'What is fated (ncTrpcjTat,) for Zeus except to rule for ever?'
To which question no answer is given, but we shall learn that Zeus might
have begotten a son more powerful than himself who would have put an end
to his rule. Ed. Fraenkel, who has discussed the passage so well, is no doubt
right to say (Aeschylus Oresteia m 729), following Wilamowitz, that 'no
more than any other being can he escape the consequences of his actions'.
There appears to be thus a shift in the point of view, with the introduction of
Erinyes, whose association with the Moirai is one of punishing breaches of
order; and ananke is now the rigid operation of cause and effect by which
punishment follows crime. Should we say that, in this passage, the writer has
conflated two different conceptions of moira? (In which case the question
whether Aeschylus did, or could have, done this might be a matter of
Prometheus Vinctus 511-20 335
APPENDIX D
A full analysis of all the trains of thought and emotion, of all the aesthetic
relationships, in this subtle kommos would be lengthy and difficult. I wish
only to pick out certain features, particularly those which seem to reflect the
Aeschylean background.
The main theme of the first two stanzas (121—52) is Electra and her
excessive lamentation, the Chorus' appeal to her to be moderate (which is to
say not Electra, not heroic, not tragic). Electra uses a strong word of
distraction at 135 (aXveiv); the chorus pick it up with rcov hvo<f>6pwv (144),
which may carry a suggestion of mental sickness (see above p. 20 n. 28 on
Ajax). To this she replies with vy-mos 09 . . . i-rnXadeTai. The claim that her
apparent breach of sophrosune or mental balance is the only true wisdom is
characteristic and will be carried further in the scenes with Chrysothemis.
121-7 (Chorus) contains a clear reference back to 37 (SdAoiat), the Pythian
instruction to Orestes. (Note, therefore, adeajrara intervening between
SoXepds and airarais.) That one crafty killing is to be avenged by another is a
theme prominent in the Choephori (cf. esp. 555—8). Segal TAP A 475 remarks
that 'treachery and deceit. . . seldom come off well in Sophocles'. Whether
there is any special significance in the fact that Electra is addressed as daughter
of her mother rather than of her father (contr. if. of Orestes) each reader must
decide for himself. In so far as the reference to trickery suggests the ven-
geance as well as the crime, it may be worth noting that the chorus are made
to use the masculine: 6 rdSe iropwv (suggestive of Aegisthus only). Change
this to the feminine, and el /not Be/jus rdS9 avSdv might take on a different
tone.
137-44 (Chorus). That you cannot raise the dead is a commonplace
prominent in the Oresteia. But the yoos in the Cho. was a way of mobilizing
the power of the dead; and Electra has prayed to the chthonian powers at
1 ioff. (cf. 184, 245f. below). And the dead man returns in the ominous dream
of Clytemnestra (cf. 453ff).
145-52 (Electra). Electra compares herself- her state of mind - to two
Prometheus Vinctus 511-20 335
APPENDIX D
A full analysis of all the trains of thought and emotion, of all the aesthetic
relationships, in this subtle kommos would be lengthy and difficult. I wish
only to pick out certain features, particularly those which seem to reflect the
Aeschylean background.
The main theme of the first two stanzas (121—52) is Electra and her
excessive lamentation, the Chorus' appeal to her to be moderate (which is to
say not Electra, not heroic, not tragic). Electra uses a strong word of
distraction at 135 (aXveiv); the chorus pick it up with rcov hvo<f>6pwv (144),
which may carry a suggestion of mental sickness (see above p. 20 n. 28 on
Ajax). To this she replies with vy-mos 09 . . . i-rnXadeTai. The claim that her
apparent breach of sophrosune or mental balance is the only true wisdom is
characteristic and will be carried further in the scenes with Chrysothemis.
121-7 (Chorus) contains a clear reference back to 37 (SdAoiat), the Pythian
instruction to Orestes. (Note, therefore, adeajrara intervening between
SoXepds and airarais.) That one crafty killing is to be avenged by another is a
theme prominent in the Choephori (cf. esp. 555—8). Segal TAP A 475 remarks
that 'treachery and deceit. . . seldom come off well in Sophocles'. Whether
there is any special significance in the fact that Electra is addressed as daughter
of her mother rather than of her father (contr. if. of Orestes) each reader must
decide for himself. In so far as the reference to trickery suggests the ven-
geance as well as the crime, it may be worth noting that the chorus are made
to use the masculine: 6 rdSe iropwv (suggestive of Aegisthus only). Change
this to the feminine, and el /not Be/jus rdS9 avSdv might take on a different
tone.
137-44 (Chorus). That you cannot raise the dead is a commonplace
prominent in the Oresteia. But the yoos in the Cho. was a way of mobilizing
the power of the dead; and Electra has prayed to the chthonian powers at
1 ioff. (cf. 184, 245f. below). And the dead man returns in the ominous dream
of Clytemnestra (cf. 453ff).
145-52 (Electra). Electra compares herself- her state of mind - to two
336 The Parodos of Electra
(437ff.) is relevant: time reduced the suffering of Oedipus so that he felt his
passion had run too far. That would be the normal connotation, but that is
not how time works on Electra nor how the situation is to be resolved. Not
by a gradual running-down of emotion, but by catastrophe; and the cata-
strophe is implied by the next explanatory yap and what it goes with. This is
one of those cases (cf. Ajax i82ff.) in which two reasons are given, each with
its own yap, but here the reasons are, emotionally, contradictory. For how
will Zeus, to whom Electra must commit her grief, punish the offence? Time
will bring, not an easing of emotion, but action on the part of two agencies,
neither of which is heedless (182): Orestes, now (as they think) an exile at
Crisa and the god that rules in the underworld, to whom Electra had prayed
(no). A human agent and a divine power. So here, in this stanza, we find that
Aeschylean conjunction of powers: at the beginning Zeus in heaven, at the
end 'the god that rules beside Acheron', and in between Orestes, the human
agent, so described as to remind us of his association with Apollo.
185-92 (Electra). Electra remains inconsolable: hopeless, desperate, child-
less, husbandless, a drudge, ill-clothed, ill-fed.
193-200 (Chorus). 'Moved by Electra's misery, they join with her in
bewailing its cause' (Jebb). With them we return, vividly, to the moment of
Agamemnon's death - to his piteous death-cry, when the axe struck. 'It was
craft that plotted, lust that killed.' (Craft again, which will be answered by
craft.) And then we get some more remarkable phrases. Craft and lust 'had
engendered, terribly, a terrible shape' (i98f.). The shape of what? 'The act of
murder', saysjebb, 'embodied in the image of a supernatural dAaoTa>p.' The
IJLop<f>rj does indeed indicate a personification, an embodiment, an alastor, a
daimon, an Erinys. They go on to sing: 'whether it was a god or some mortal
who was accomplishing these things'. They are not singing of the deed of
Orestes and Electra, but the deed of Clytemnestra and Aegisthus. The killing
of Agamemnon was, in Aeschylus, the work of an Erinys or Erinyes (Again.
1433, 1580); and it was in consequence of a crime or crimes. The same
ambivalence, the same relationship between deity and human agent, holds
good of the vengeance of Orestes. (The eire . . . etrc here, is in fact an
antithesis strictly comparable to the ovre . . . ovre of i8off., about Orestes
and the god of the nether world.)
201-12 (Electra). Day and night again. The night of disaster following the
day of hope, which is therefore, in retrospect, the most hateful of days.
Electra returns to her own plight and prays for vengeance on the murderers.
She prays that the great god of Olympus may punish them (2O9f.). deos 6
fieyas 'OXvfnnos picks up I74f. (fieyas ovpavd) Zevs), so enclosing the
reference to Hades at 184 and the Erinys implied at I98ff. between two
mentions of Zeus. Trolvifia nddea nadciv nopoi (210), Zeus works through
Erinyes (Poinai), embodied in human avengers: it is Zeus who, with good
338 T h e Parodos of Electra
will (€v<f>povi), is going to bring Orestes home (i62f.). 'May they not enjoy
their splendour, having accomplished such deeds!' (21 if.). It is, as Jebb says,
'the external splendour of their life' (ayXatas); and this is what Electra so
much resents in its contrast to her own life of misery (189-92). The word
might perhaps recall oXfiios (160). What glory and prosperity await Orestes
(and Electra) roidS* dvvoavres «fpya?
213-32 (Chorus, Electra). Frightened by this explicit prayer for vengeance
(their own similar prayer, in the singular, I26f., had been qualified by €t/101
Septs rd8* avSdv), the Chorus return to their warnings, which are once more
rejected by Electra. She is aggravating her present plight, bringing atai upon
herself (oiKeias els aras\ 215). Ate is a strong word which will be repeated.
She replies that she can do no other (rfvayKaadrjv, 221): Seivd give rise to
Scivd. (On the theme of ananke, evil inevitably creating fresh evil, see pp. 223 flf.)
233-50 (Chorus, Electra). The Chorus return to their warning and to the
word ate (oliceias els drag, 215; and, after Electra's 224, /XT) TLKTCLV o'drav
<XTCUS\ 235), which is now doubled. They advise her, in goodwill, like a
faithful mother (which is just what Electra does not have). Kells points out
that they end their contribution to the kommos as they began it (ring-compo-
sition) with the mother-theme. And they use the metaphor of birth (TIKTCIV).
But Electra's own mother that bare her is the actual cause that she herself
bears atai from atai. The verb is followed by €<f>v and cjSAaorc, with sugges-
tions of heredity and natural process. (Cf. Segal 487ff.) Electra replies by
asking, indignantly, what measure (fjuerpov) there can be of, or in, KaKorrjs-
The precise sense may be doubtful, but she is certainly (one would suppose)
rejecting the notion that in her plight there is a point at which one can, and
should, stop. So much and no more, as the Chorus seem to think. Is this in
nature? Disregard the dead? How can this be kalorP. In what human being is
this inborn? If there are any such (preparation for Chrysothemis), she rejects
their approval, as she rejects a quiet enjoyment (like Chrysothemis) of
advantage. She will continue to honour parents (yovewv) with unfettered
wings of lamentation. Parents, but she is thinking of one parent only. She
passes on to that lucid statement of the duty of revenge which has been
examined in the text (see p. 225), without which, she claims, there can be no
aides, no eusebeia. 6 fiev: her father; of 8e: the murderers, but the masculine
plural pronoun conceals the fact that one of the murderers is her mother.
Not everybody will find in the words of the kommos every suggestion that I
have put forward, and I would not dare to assert that they were all present to
the mind of the poet. This is Sophoclean lyric at its most complex and
elusive. I hope, however, that there is enough to justify my statement in the
text that, along with the expression of poignant emotion, there is a deploy-
ment of ideas, and of ideas closely related to the thought of Aeschylus, which
The Parodos of Electra 339
must at least raise questions, however they are to be answered, about the
quality of the act of matricide to come.
APPENDIX E
Words of locality are frequent in the opening scene. The matter is first raised
in if, with the twofold enquiry of Oedipus: what places (xo>povs), what city
of men? This is answered, in reverse order, by Antigone at 141T.: the city afar,
which she knows to be Athens (24), and the x<*>pos (16, 24) which she only
knows to be holy. When the villager enters, Oedipus asks (38): what is the
X&pos? And the first answer is: OLOIKTOS OV8* oiicqros (39, cf. 37). It may be
accident that this follows e^ot/c^aiftos", OIKJJTOS (27f.) of the TOTTOS (26), but,
when Oedipus repeats apparently the same question at 52 (ris ead9 6 x&pos
8rjr* iv <L jSejS^/ca/Lcev), the answer is different: no longer that this is a dwelling
of the fearful goddesses but that 'this whole \<hpos is holy' (54) - it is Colonus
with all its sanctuaries and with its people (6of., 64). The distinction between
Colonus itself and the grove which it contains (as localities) may not be very
significant, but it exists; and the people of Colonus, represented by the
Chorus, have their own attitude to the grove and their own (conflicting)
reactions to Oedipus. The main localities, however, are Athens and the
grove; and the relations of each to the other and of Oedipus to both have
prime importance in the play.
Oedipus is a wanderer: 3, 50, I23f. (7rAcu>aTas . . . ov8y eyxwpos), 165. He
is a foreigner (13). As a foreigner he finds a new citizenship (x<*>P9- &' ^finoXiv
KCLToiKia), 637) in Athens, but chooses to remain in 'this x<*>pos* (644), as
themis demands. As a wanderer he finds a settled resting-place, which is also a
seat of supplication: a e8pa.Thc word is insistent, c£. 45, 112. The villagers
will allow Oedipus to settle on profane ground (£8pdva>v, 176, cf. 195), but,
when they hear who he is, they take this back (iSpdvwv, 233), bidding him
leave their land and not embarrass their city. But Oedipus was still on holy
ground when he made his prayer at 84ff. He prayed to the ladies of terrible
visage, 'since now I have come to rest first with you in this land' (it is not
perhaps quite clear whether 28pas here should be taken of Oedipus or the
goddesses). This is at 84f; at 89f. he says Phoebus had foretold that this would
be his rest after long time, when he had reached his goal in a land where he
would find a seat (I8pav) of the Awful Goddesses and a halt for strangers
) . This is their e8pa, and it is his. The relationship which subsists
The Parodos of Electra 339
must at least raise questions, however they are to be answered, about the
quality of the act of matricide to come.
APPENDIX E
Words of locality are frequent in the opening scene. The matter is first raised
in if, with the twofold enquiry of Oedipus: what places (xo>povs), what city
of men? This is answered, in reverse order, by Antigone at 141T.: the city afar,
which she knows to be Athens (24), and the x<*>pos (16, 24) which she only
knows to be holy. When the villager enters, Oedipus asks (38): what is the
X&pos? And the first answer is: OLOIKTOS OV8* oiicqros (39, cf. 37). It may be
accident that this follows e^ot/c^aiftos", OIKJJTOS (27f.) of the TOTTOS (26), but,
when Oedipus repeats apparently the same question at 52 (ris ead9 6 x&pos
8rjr* iv <L jSejS^/ca/Lcev), the answer is different: no longer that this is a dwelling
of the fearful goddesses but that 'this whole \<hpos is holy' (54) - it is Colonus
with all its sanctuaries and with its people (6of., 64). The distinction between
Colonus itself and the grove which it contains (as localities) may not be very
significant, but it exists; and the people of Colonus, represented by the
Chorus, have their own attitude to the grove and their own (conflicting)
reactions to Oedipus. The main localities, however, are Athens and the
grove; and the relations of each to the other and of Oedipus to both have
prime importance in the play.
Oedipus is a wanderer: 3, 50, I23f. (7rAcu>aTas . . . ov8y eyxwpos), 165. He
is a foreigner (13). As a foreigner he finds a new citizenship (x<*>P9- &' ^finoXiv
KCLToiKia), 637) in Athens, but chooses to remain in 'this x<*>pos* (644), as
themis demands. As a wanderer he finds a settled resting-place, which is also a
seat of supplication: a e8pa.Thc word is insistent, c£. 45, 112. The villagers
will allow Oedipus to settle on profane ground (£8pdva>v, 176, cf. 195), but,
when they hear who he is, they take this back (iSpdvwv, 233), bidding him
leave their land and not embarrass their city. But Oedipus was still on holy
ground when he made his prayer at 84ff. He prayed to the ladies of terrible
visage, 'since now I have come to rest first with you in this land' (it is not
perhaps quite clear whether 28pas here should be taken of Oedipus or the
goddesses). This is at 84f; at 89f. he says Phoebus had foretold that this would
be his rest after long time, when he had reached his goal in a land where he
would find a seat (I8pav) of the Awful Goddesses and a halt for strangers
) . This is their e8pa, and it is his. The relationship which subsists
34° Locality in Oedipus Coloneus
between Oedipus and the Eumenides is a vital element in the play (see p. 267
above).
Finally, yet another locality will acquire dramatic importance as the last
resting-place of Oedipus; and this is the place of his grave (or whatever we
should call it). This too is a x<*>P°s ('520, 1540). Its precise location is ex
hypothesi unknown to the audience, but various topographical indications
are given in the Messenger's speech which the poet of Colonus must have
expected his auditors to recognize (Rosenmeyer, Phoenix 104 n. 48 is alto-
gether too sceptical), if they are mostly lost on us. One point is clear: the
brazen steps of which the Messenger speaks at I59of. cannot be dissociated
from the Brazen Threshold of 56f. The final resting-place of Oedipus was in
the general area sacred to the goddesses.
APPENDIX F
Philoctetes 41 off.
between Oedipus and the Eumenides is a vital element in the play (see p. 267
above).
Finally, yet another locality will acquire dramatic importance as the last
resting-place of Oedipus; and this is the place of his grave (or whatever we
should call it). This too is a x<*>P°s ('520, 1540). Its precise location is ex
hypothesi unknown to the audience, but various topographical indications
are given in the Messenger's speech which the poet of Colonus must have
expected his auditors to recognize (Rosenmeyer, Phoenix 104 n. 48 is alto-
gether too sceptical), if they are mostly lost on us. One point is clear: the
brazen steps of which the Messenger speaks at I59of. cannot be dissociated
from the Brazen Threshold of 56f. The final resting-place of Oedipus was in
the general area sacred to the goddesses.
APPENDIX F
Philoctetes 41 off.
APPENDIXG
Of the seven extant plays two only have firm production-dates: Philoctetes
was produced in 409, Oedipus Coloneus (posthumously) in 401. Antigone is
said to have been responsible for Sophocles' election as general in 440, which,
true or false, would not have been said unless the play was known to have
been produced shortly before that date. The chronology of the four remain-
ing plays is disputed. The following notes aim only to set out, without much
argument, the assumptions made in the foregoing discussions. For fuller
treatment of these complex matters the reader is referred to standard editions
of the plays, to Lesky, TD, and to specialized monographs, some of which
are mentioned below.
APPENDIXG
Of the seven extant plays two only have firm production-dates: Philoctetes
was produced in 409, Oedipus Coloneus (posthumously) in 401. Antigone is
said to have been responsible for Sophocles' election as general in 440, which,
true or false, would not have been said unless the play was known to have
been produced shortly before that date. The chronology of the four remain-
ing plays is disputed. The following notes aim only to set out, without much
argument, the assumptions made in the foregoing discussions. For fuller
treatment of these complex matters the reader is referred to standard editions
of the plays, to Lesky, TD, and to specialized monographs, some of which
are mentioned below.
Johansen, Lustrum 2Sj{.; Segal, YCS 103 n. 18. 'Der Bau des Stiickes schliesst
eine Spatdatierung aus' (Lesky); and one may observe the collocation of long
speeches, with little or no dialogue, in the centre of this play (749-812,
899-946,1046-1111) as of Ajax (646-92, 748-83, 815-65). Metrical evidence
also seems to exclude a late dating. H. A. Pohlsander, AJP 84 (1963) 28off,
seeks to show, by an analysis of the lyric metres, that Trachiniae is closer to
Oedipus Tyrannus than to Ajax and Antigone (cf. also D. S. Raven, AJP 86
(1965) 225ff). Pohlsander's argument is criticized by L. P. E. Parker, Lustrum
1970/15, 96; and T. C. W. Stinton, CQ 27 (1977) 67-72, adduces other
metrical evidence which could indicate that Trachiniae is the earliest extant
play. E. R. Schwinge, Die Stellung der Trachinierinnen im Werk des Sophokles
(Gottingen 1962) argues for a date in association with Ajax and Antigone; and
F. R. Earp, The style of Sophocles (Cambridge 1944) reached the same
conclusion on stylistic grounds. That is perhaps as far as we ought to go.
Electra. Jebb gave reasons for placing this play relatively late, i.e. not earlier
than c. 420; many would wish to put it far closer to Philoctetes and Oedipus
Coloneus, with which it shares characteristics of form and spirit; and A. M.
Dale, Collected papers (Cambridge 1969) 227-9, argues for 413. The vexed
question of priority as between the Electras of Sophocles and Euripides
would only help us if we could (i) settle the priority, (ii) establish a firm date
for the Euripidean play, neither of which can we do. It is doubtful if (i) can
ever be done on internal evidence, since all the main points of contrast
between the two plays can be equally well explained on either hypothesis of
date. As to (ii), Euripides' Electra was once confidently assigned to 413, on
evidence which has now been assailed; and it is rash to disregard the metrical
evidence which points to 420-17. This earlier dating would not of course
rule out the priority of Sophocles, but renders it much less likely. A. Vogler,
Vergleichende Studien zur sophokleischen und euripideischen Elektra (Heidelberg
1967), should be read together with H. Lloyd-Jones' review in CR 19 (1969)
The chronology of the plays 343
The picture which emerges, then, is a group of relatively early plays, the
order of which cannot be determined; Oedipus Tyrannus in the early or
mid-42os; and a group of relatively late or very late plays, one of uncertain
date.
SELECT INDEX